Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Perhaps a big help, if AZ holds for Biden then it will undermine any of Trump's efforts in PA to undermine the vote counting there. The courts will be even less inclined to get involved if it won't change the outcome anyway.

    • Have you ever studied what happens when a country has only one effective political party?

      It is likely that the Democratic party will secure both the Presidency and the House. There is also a possibility that the Georgia run-off election will result in the Democratic party also controlling the Senate.

      You apparently are so anti-Republican that you've not considered what the long term consequences would be to this country if either party became so ineffective that the other one could rule completely unhindered. Based on what has happened in other countries and what also happened many years ago in this country, I personally prefer a country in which neither party can take their power for granted and in which the voters can eject either party when the voters get upset.

    • You apparently are so anti-Republican

      I would have voted for Jon Huntsman! Give us an honest and capable Republican like George H.W. Bush or McCain, and most people would feel differently. Anti-Trump is not the same as anti-Republican.

    • Chris,

      I was not writing about anything which you wrote nor did the context have anything at all to do with Donald Trump. I've told you repeatedly I've never been a supporter of the candidacies of Donald Trump.

      Another person responded to a comment I had made by saying "DC statehood would add two Democratic senators to help balance an unrepresentative Senate."

      It was to that statement that I made the comment which I did.

      Donald Trump has NOTHING to do with the subject of whether DC should be given statehood.

      My earlier comment had stated that if the residential section of DC was separated from the governmental section of DC that statehood would be workable or that the residential section could be made a part of Maryland.

    • Yes and at this point the country is too biased towards Republicans. They’ve used gerrymandering and local government control to such an extent that they’ve won numerous times without winning the popular vote. Keep in mind these ideas are ones that I got from a republican! He (David Frum) sees the whole system losing the balance you yourself say is important.

      So no I’m not so anti Republican. I’m anti Trumpism. Anti lie through your ass and destroy public trust to such an extent that you can further corrupt the system and turn it into a joke if allowed to continue. Even in my own country I’m non-partisan. I’ve voted for three different parties and support the best policies and candidates. I go door to door when it’s required in order to protect the rights of the people. It’s the disadvantaged and lower classes that I care most about. Trickle down economics...not so effective. So you’ve greatly misread me.

    • If I misread you why do you suggest that the Senate is not representative.

      One third of the US Senate was elected before Donald Trump was elected. Many senators have been elected from the Democratic party since Trump's election. Making DC a state would not make the Senate more representative than it is.

      Furthermore, the original purpose of the US Senate was to provide the State governments with clout in the national government. Today, the state governments have no voice in the national government because the voice which the Constitution gave to them has been taken from them.

      The question of whether DC should be a state has nothing to do with Donald Trump. That question has been around for decades and it will still be around after Trump's presidency is ended.

      Don't tell me that this is about being anti-Trump because this subject has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

    • Yes in fact is does have to do with it. I got the idea from a book called Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy. I’ve written a review here on Cake. Have a read and then you’ll get what I mean.

    • Any book that suggests that the DC question has only been a big point for discussion in the last five years is not worthy of my reading. In my youth, I was very heavily into politics and I can state with first hand knoweledge that the DC question was a big subject in the late 70s and throughout the 1980s.

      I also know why the original founders of the USA wanted DC to be separate and apart from the states.

      I personally do not believe that DC needs to be as big as it is. I would be in favor of redrawing the boundaries of DC so that the vast majority of its residents were able to vote for the President and for two senators and a representative.

      But I am not about to read a book that suggests that this subject begins and ends with Donald Trump or with his supporters.

    • It’s not about his supporters. His supporters are not all racists and bad people obviously. They’re a wide assortment of people. They are tired of being left behind. Tired of being ignored by the elite. Tired of being told they aren’t good enough. Tired of being told they need to be perfect and that being white means you’re automatically a racist. They’re tired of being told they are responsible for other people’s sins. Tired of feeling guilty and told they should be ashamed. They just want to have a good life. A chance at a reasonable and honest living. Tired of change that has brought them more struggles than good. They’re tired of being told they aren’t smart enough, giving enough or woke enough. They want to go back to times when they had more hope. They know the system was broken and were tired of a jobless recovery. They are scared of the future and what it might bring because they’d been ignored too long and they’ll have no more of it. They also want to practice their religion and not have others impinge their views on them. Political correctness has gotten out of hand and they are pushing back. They struggle and want their efforts to benefit them. It’s about them. They have their legitimate reasons.

      The book is about Trump and the wealthy who have warped the Republican Party to benefit the rich. It’s about Trump and his hollow message because he’s truly about himself. People love him because they feel he allows them to be themselves but he’s a con man and his promises are hollow. He’s full of lies and deceit. Yes, others before him are guilty of some of this but Trump makes them look like saints in comparison. But the book isn’t mostly about Trump. It’s about how to fix the problem and create a new Republican Party and system that will be more equal and benefit more people. It’s a message of hope.

      I should add that when I say it’s too biased towards The Republicans, what I really mean is it’s too biased by the current form of Republicanism. One that’s too influenced by the rich supporters who have gotten people in who have views that are generally further right than the average Republican voter. This is a main reason why the income gap has grown. Why real wages have stagnated for a long long time. Why health care reform is stymied and why social programs of every kind are fought against tooth and nail by the Republicans. The system or good chunk of the Republican Party has been corrupted by the rich. The Democratic Party has also been influenced by the rich and this neither party has really met the needs of the people. The current form of the Republican Party isn’t one that is going to move the party forward in a meaningful way and panders to the rich while not being forthright with the Republican voters. It’s a shame and people have been duped in part by the bait and switch. The Republicans never had a health care program for example. All ludicrous nonsense and Trump is the worst of them.

    • One that’s too influenced by the rich supporters who have gotten people in who have views that are generally further right than the average Republican voter. This is a main reason why the income gap has grown.

      This isn't true. The main reason the income gap has grown out of control is that Democrats passed a tax bill in 1992 that required executive pay over $1 million be tied to performance as a way to limit executive pay. However it turns out the easiest way for companies to do that was to shift executive compensation to stock options, and we all know how the stock market has done and how that changed the focus of many executives.

    • I agree with most (maybe even all but because of being rushed, I haven't read it carefully) of what you wrote.

      But none of that has to do with the DC statehood question nor does it have to do with whether the US Senate is representative of the US population.

      The US population is almost evenly divided except that the metropolitan areas tend more towards the Democratic party. The US Senate is very representative of the US population. The fact that the control of the Senate could go either way due to two run-off elections demonstrates just how much the US Senate is like unto the US population.

    • When it comes to legislation, this is par for the course. The phrase that is usually used is "unintended consequences" but the passing of legislation which backfires is typical.

      Those who write these kinds of laws want the courts to correct the mistakes that the legislators make by basing judicial decisions on the intent of the legislators instead of the legislators taking responsibility for their own ham-handed bill drafting.

      There are numerous situations that are precariously teetering on the brink of being overturned simply because the legislators don't take the time to either get it right the first time or to go back and correct the problem when they get it wrong.

    • Nonsense, by population Wyoming has almost 15 times the representation of California in the Senate. It is not "evenly divided". Democrats outnumber Republicans in voting across the nation by the millions, and yet do not control the Senate. Literally the only reason Republicans do control the Senate is voter suppression and oversized representation by States like Wyoming.

    • I think the underrepresentation of science is much worse. According to Pew, only 6% of scientists are republican and their jobs are overwhelmingly where universities and government & company research centers are, which are overwhelmingly blue.

      If you want a nation that ignores science and embraces conspiracies, just draw the vote from where there are few scientists.

    • This is one of the reasons why the Senate should not be elected by popular vote. It was not created for the same purpose as the House. The House was supposed to represent the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the State Governments.

      The State Governments have been deprived of having any clout in the national government and the Senate is malfunctioning.

    • The US senate is NOT representative of the USA population. You know it and I know it. Despite having the minority of votes the Republican senate continues to win majorities in most elections. The senate highly favors the Republicans and there’s very little chance a progressive agenda could get through despite the majority of the population supporting it. It’s gridlock against change. This is so because of the senate and how it favors Republicans. The filibuster makes it basically a wall for legislative change. The majority of USA citizens support a universal health care of some kind but there’s no chance that could ever get through. You know this is true and that the senate does not represent the population makeup of the United States.

    • It seems to favor the 1% as well, no? Going down a list of things popular among the public, the senate seems to block most of them — infrastructure, health care, yada.