timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)

[Yankee23Fan]

4. Chaos This is by far the scariest theory, but for me in many ways the most compelling. It essentially suggests that all of the above theories are nice to look at, but in the end, as in all human affairs, none of it is as important as mere chance. We have Obamcare, for example, not because of a trend in unfunded mandates, or because that powerful people decided we should have it, or because of pluralism or because Big Pharma wanted it. All of these things might have come into play, but the biggest reason we have Obamacare is because of sheer luck. The odds just happened to add up that way, exactly as sometimes a punted football will land at the 5 yard line and stay there, and other times it will roll in the endzone. There are simply far too many factors at play, some of them historical, some of them psychological, some of them spur of the moment, for us to determine anything about the reasons why things happen- they just happen.

I didn't realize you were 10 years older than me. One of my degrees is in political science as well. All of these theories are wrong when it comes specifically to American politics because it is a unique system unto itself. But of all them Chaos is the closest to the truth.

But it's not chaos in the sense that sheer luck is the ultimate defining line. Far from it. IT's not luck. It's because of the very nature of our system. Think about what the founders did. They created a government whose singular purpose was to limit itself from becoming the failure that every other government of men was, to shield the people from the power of a possible king, and to recognize that everything they did was doomed to failure if not for the ability to fix and change it over time.

We suffer a coup every 2 years without the need for the military to remove those in power. The people have a say in their government at all levels. The power centers move depending on the issue and times. There are various levels of government all of which have their unique power. Our political reality is one of fighting authority while at the same time knowing that authority is needed. The chaos isnt luck, it's general human nature. We took the best of us and the worst of us and condensed it into a system that allowed for both and the control and temperment of both as well. And if we screw up and let the worst of us get too powerful we can fix that through a myriad of systems when cooler heads prevail instead of needing the army to clear out a village in Nebraska.

We don't give ourselves - well, our founders and first leaders - enough credit sometimes. What they did was remarkable. Jackson's generation did a great job of keeping it moving, Lincolns did a great job of almost destroying it but we managed to hold, Teddy's grew up and saw the problems of unfettered power in the hands of a few and pushed back, FDR's answered to a higher calling in the midst of world wide destruction, Kennedy's look for a new beginning in the midst of a new understanding on how to treat each other, Reagan's helped to explode world wide information and Obama's slammed us into the 21st century whether we liked it or not. But in all of that, through the mistakes and problems and wars and policies and hatred and vile societal upheaval and lack of empathy and adult focus on the more important things, our system has held. Obama will leave office in two years in a limo without a shot fired but the new leader taking his office. Business will go on. The simple fact that we have managed to exist for over 200 years based upon a document that wouldn't be longer than a definition section of a farm bill designed to regulate the height of wheat fields in Nebraska is a testament to the best of us in the midst of dealing with the worst of us.

Screw Zinn and people like him. We don't get enough credit. Not because we are perfect, but because we through our system know we aren't and have the ability to fix that and learn from our mistakes. That's the chaos - we can change. And the impetus for change can come from any corner of the country.

 

[timschochet]

Beautiful Yankee. That brought tears to my eyes, no shtick.

But don't attack Zinn too much. He and all of our muckrakers and critics serve an important purpose. I don't accept his conclusion, but I'm grateful for his accumulation of the facts.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In the last post and this one, I'm digressing a little bit, but Yankee opened it up when he stated that he was primarily concerned with process. While I know very little about the Constitution (and am learning quite a bit in this discussion) I do know something about political science, because that was my major at college. The focus at that time (mid to late 1980s) at my university was not the laws (process) but the outcome, and specifically how the outcome was achieved- in practical terms. There were 4 different theories as to how outcomes are achieved in the United States:

1. Elite theory This was the most popular theory among progressives and leftists. It was originated by C. Wright Mills, who wrote The Power Elite, and refined by Herbert Marcuse, who pioneered the New Left movement, though it really goes back to Karl Marx IMO. The theory is pretty simple: in every state, city, or large county, there are a group of elites- corporation chairmen and presidents, business owners, real estate moguls, etc. Forget elections or appointments- these guys decide who the candidates are going to be; they decide what laws are going to be passed, they decide everything of importance that is going to happen. Nothing is allowed without their approval. They have all the money to spend and they get to make all the decisions. Normally this is not very formal, and often their are competing interests involved (usually Democratic elites, made up these days of labor unions and trial attorneys, versus Republican elites made up of corporations and the Chamber of Commerce.)

If you accept this theory, then Yankee's argument about the 17th Amendment becomes absolutely irrelevant, since it doesn't matter whether a Senator is elected by the public, elected by a legislature, or appointed by a governor. In each case, he or she is still effectively chosen in a back room somewhere by the "powers that be". And while the Senator once chosen is free to act independently on a variety of issues that don't really matter to the power elites, on the KEY issues (for example Dodd Frank) he needs to toe the line, or he won't be in office very long.

2. Pluralism First developed by a brilliant writer named Robert Dahl. This theory claims the public has power, but only when they get passionate, which is not often. For this theory to work most of the public has to be disinterested, that way society remains undemocratic. A good example of pluralism is the gun debate. Polls suggest that some 70% of the American public would like to see more legal restrictions on firearms. But most of this 70% doesn't really care too much about this issue- they might get passionate after something like what happened in Newtown, but they don't stay passionate, and they don't vote on it. Meanwhile the 30% opposed to more restrictions are ALWAYS passionate about it, and they WILL vote on it. Plus they're willing to contribute money on this issue. The result is that the 30% almost always defeats the 70%. And that's the way pluralism works: those who care get what they want.

3. Technocracy This theory was relatively new when I went to college and I don't know whether it's become more popular. In my mind, it was always the weakest of the theories, flawed at the outset. Basically, those with technical knowledge decide everything. The computer and software designers, the engineers, the bio experts and chemists who create our drugs- they're the ones in power. This theory is not much different from the elite theory except it represents a different kind of elite- power has slowly removed from the landowners and corporate types and placed in the hands of Facebook, which has more impact on elections and laws passed than anyone else.

4. Chaos This is by far the scariest theory, but for me in many ways the most compelling. It essentially suggests that all of the above theories are nice to look at, but in the end, as in all human affairs, none of it is as important as mere chance. We have Obamcare, for example, not because of a trend in unfunded mandates, or because that powerful people decided we should have it, or because of pluralism or because Big Pharma wanted it. All of these things might have come into play, but the biggest reason we have Obamacare is because of sheer luck. The odds just happened to add up that way, exactly as sometimes a punted football will land at the 5 yard line and stay there, and other times it will roll in the endzone. There are simply far too many factors at play, some of them historical, some of them psychological, some of them spur of the moment, for us to determine anything about the reasons why things happen- they just happen.

I'm not sure that any of this does the job.

I will add that when I saw technocracy I thought that would mean the technocrats, the bureaucrats who work in government and who are not elected at all, they may not even be beholden to those who are elected. Elected officials come and go but technocrats stay. Unfortunately a lot of the rule making that goes on may actually technically be unconstitutional. Recently Obama raised the minimum wage for federal contracts. Well the president can't authorize the spending of money, only the House can.

In the context of our Constitution, I am not sure we are supposed to have a lot of outcomes to begin with. We are a big country, does Massachusetts really have to do what Texas does with everything? Does Louisiana really have to do what Ohio does? Outside of fundamental, constitutional rights I am not sure why this is often necessary. In general our disparate philosophies make any action difficult.

You brought up the ACA/Obamacare. How did that outcome get achieved? Ok, Pluralism, we have had a need for some kind of reform leading to lower HC costs and prices for a while. Yes Chaos applied because the historical congruence of the mismanagement of the Iraq War and the stock market crash in September 2008 led to the swing of the House, Senate and WH to the Democrats. Some Democrats had been pushing for HC legislation for a long time, some did not. In the end a handful of Democratic Representatives and maybe 5-6 Democratic Senators forced a law that was not about universal coverage but instead was a cobbled together tax and subsidy plan. In the end it took a violation of a Congressional budgeting procedure (reconciliation) and an executive order changing the law itself immediately after its passage in order to achieve what outcome was achieved. Upon passage the chief executive over the course of 4 years has sought fit to not "execute" a substantive portion of the law he himself advocated. The GOP Congress and the next GOP President may further whittle away at this in several ways going forward. What outcome was reached? Affordability? Maybe not. Increased access (website) and ease of getting HC insurance (via subsidy), yes. Some things like the mandate tax and losing their plans and doctors were not what people were clamoring for at all.

I don't want to talk about ACA, I'm just saying that our Constitution shoehorns what happens, there are a thousand possible breaches for every bill. What we did not get was an extremist bill, one with universal health care, with a law declaring HC a right and establishing a permanent fund for the HC of all everywhere. You could say it was part elites (lots of handouts and goodies in ACA for corporations, for Pharma, and connected individuals like David Axelrod), it's part pluralism (people definitely wanted relief... which btw they are still awaiting), part technocracy (ie the bureaucrats who wrote so much of the bill and the post passage rule writing in a whole new area they could never get their hands on before), and part chaos (the fortuitousness of the Iraq War and the stock market bringings the Dems to power in all branches).

 

[timschochet]

1. d4 Nf6

2. Nf3 g6

3. Nbd2 Bg7

4. e4 d6

5. Bd3 O-O

6. O-O Nc6

7. c3 e5

8. h3 Nh5

9. d5 Ne7

10. Re1 Nf4

11. Nf1 f5

12. Bc4 Re8

13. Bxf4 exf4

14 e5 h6

15. Qd2 g5

16. Nd4This is a very complicated position and I ave no idea if I'm winning or losing. Probably the latter.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

1. Elite theory This was the most popular theory among progressives and leftists. It was originated by C. Wright Mills, who wrote The Power Elite, and refined by Herbert Marcuse, who pioneered the New Left movement, though it really goes back to Karl Marx IMO. The theory is pretty simple: in every state, city, or large county, there are a group of elites- corporation chairmen and presidents, business owners, real estate moguls, etc. Forget elections or appointments- these guys decide who the candidates are going to be; they decide what laws are going to be passed, they decide everything of importance that is going to happen. Nothing is allowed without their approval. They have all the money to spend and they get to make all the decisions. Normally this is not very formal, and often their are competing interests involved (usually Democratic elites, made up these days of labor unions and trial attorneys, versus Republican elites made up of corporations and the Chamber of Commerce.)

I will just point out that there are many, many Democrats in the corporate sector. Many love regulation or don't mind it because it allows them to affect the market through government regs, and of course since they can influence the politicians they can influence the regulations and their own market and their own competition.

 

[hagmania]

Vanderbilt is truly amazing IMO. The fact that they have hung in there in the absolute toughest conference in all of football and have actually had winning seasons is astounding to me.

I loved going to the games, even when the visiting fans outnumber us in our own stadium. Something about wild desperation and impossible optimism made it enjoyable.

Basketball games, on the other hand, were magical. That court layout was too cool. I'd be at every game well in advance to stand right up front and slap the floor.

 

[timschochet]

I should clarify that what always scared me most about chaos theory is not how it works in this country, because as Yankee and Saints have both pointed out, the Constitution tempers everything that happens. It's the application of this theory world wide. If 101 years ago one single Serbian could commence a massive war which killed millions of people and forever altered society, what's to stop the next world war which will be nuclear?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I should clarify that what always scared me most about chaos theory is not how it works in this country, because as Yankee and Saints have both pointed out, the Constitution tempers everything that happens. It's the application of this theory world wide. If 101 years ago one single Serbian could commence a massive war which killed millions of people and forever altered society, what's to stop the next world war which will be nuclear?

Reason. - Again, see the Constitution which at all points attempts to temper chaos with reason.

 

[timschochet]

You think reason applies to the world outside us? To ISIS? To the Taliban? To Boko Harum, Hamas, or al-Qaeda? To Iran?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You think reason applies to the world outside us? To ISIS? To the Taliban? To Boko Harum, Hamas, or al-Qaeda? To Iran?

These are universal truths, chaos and reason. Iraq and Syria were founded on constitutions, so was the Weimar Republic (supposedly a beautiful document). We defended our enlightened reason against the British despotism by force of arms, unfortunately in this world that is often what it comes down to. Not recognizing that leads to unbounded chaos, which if anything is opportunistic because chaos will always fill a void.

Entropy vs Matter, etc.

 

[timschochet]

You think reason applies to the world outside us? To ISIS? To the Taliban? To Boko Harum, Hamas, or al-Qaeda? To Iran?

These are universal truths, chaos and reason. Iraq and Syria were founded on constitutions, so was the Weimar Republic (supposedly a beautiful document). We defended our enlightened reason against the British despotism by force of arms, unfortunately in this world that is often what it comes down to. Not recognizing that leads to unbounded chaos, which if anything is opportunistic because chaos will always fill a void.

Entropy vs Matter, etc.

All this is true. My point is that since 1945, things have changed. The presence of nuclear weapons means that we can no longer win wars like we used to. That's the main reason we couldn't defeat North Korea or North Vietnam- because we were too afraid of the repercussions. Even so, during the Cold War at least we could rely on Mutual Assured Destruction. Today what can we rely on to prevent an eventual nuclear war?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You think reason applies to the world outside us? To ISIS? To the Taliban? To Boko Harum, Hamas, or al-Qaeda? To Iran?

These are universal truths, chaos and reason. Iraq and Syria were founded on constitutions, so was the Weimar Republic (supposedly a beautiful document). We defended our enlightened reason against the British despotism by force of arms, unfortunately in this world that is often what it comes down to. Not recognizing that leads to unbounded chaos, which if anything is opportunistic because chaos will always fill a void.

Entropy vs Matter, etc.

All this is true.My point is that since 1945, things have changed. The presence of nuclear weapons means that we can no longer win wars like we used to. That's the main reason we couldn't defeat North Korea or North Vietnam- because we were too afraid of the repercussions. Even so, during the Cold War at least we could rely on Mutual Assured Destruction. Today what can we rely on to prevent an eventual nuclear war?

Well the proof is in the pudding, right? Despite some close calls we have made it this far. I'm a believer in institutions, even a USSR Politburo can stop and reason for what is best, and they often did when it came to this anyway.

I think the scarey thing is that technology has accelerated to the point that anarchistic and extremist individuals - the Gavrilo Princips of the world - can deliver huge blows with absolutely no influence of institutions. Princip threw a Boris & Natasha style black bomb under a horse drawn carriage. The Princips of today seek to destroy a city and whole countries with a briefcase.

I doubt Princip would have done what he did if he realized all the death and pain it would cause, which IMO continues today. I think some of the KSM's and al-Zawahiris of the world today would relish it unfortunately.

If you're asking me people need to realize that old philosophies like anarchism and medieval religionism have not died away, they still exist. Yes reason is the answer but only if we know what we are about and what opposes us. The things that are spoken of in the DOI and USC can save the world, that's my feeling about it.

That doesn't mean I think we go in like World Police, guns blazing and Wagner playing as backdrop to our helicopter cavalry swooping in everywhere we see anarchy, but at the same time we need to recognize that there are individuals with destructive technology who are 100% opportunists and they will keep moving until they are stopped. maybe they crave purity, destruction, power, money, ego, it doesn't matter, reason stands against them. The only way we defeat them is to choose leaders who recognize this.

 

[mr roboto]

Elite Theory iMO is probably the strongest at the local and state level. And really describes much of local govt in my experience.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's the main reason we couldn't defeat North Korea or North Vietnam- because we were too afraid of the repercussions.

We defeated NK pretty quickly. It was the Chinese that we settled with. McArthur's mishandling of the Yalu has led to untold suffering. But as for us and the Chinese, yeah we wisely decided to not go nuke and we also decided not to replay WW2 all over again, and we saved South Korea in the process.

Vietnam, well start at the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and IMO what begins badly ends badly (see your chess game above). It would have been better to go into Cuba in `59 or `62, again IMO.

 

[msommer]

I should clarify that what always scared me most about chaos theory is not how it works in this country, because as Yankee and Saints have both pointed out, the Constitution tempers everything that happens. It's the application of this theory world wide. If 101 years ago one single Serbian could commence a massive war which killed millions of people and forever altered society, what's to stop the next world war which will be nuclear?

The first world war's start is a little more complicated than that. There were quite a few opportunities to stop the avalanche. and the world setup is rather different today

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I should clarify that what always scared me most about chaos theory is not how it works in this country, because as Yankee and Saints have both pointed out, the Constitution tempers everything that happens. It's the application of this theory world wide. If 101 years ago one single Serbian could commence a massive war which killed millions of people and forever altered society, what's to stop the next world war which will be nuclear?

That is a wiki version of history. War was coming in Europe and many were just looking for a justifiable excuse. The assassination was the excuse not the reason.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Elite Theory iMO is probably the strongest at the local and state level. And really describes much of local govt in my experience.

I agree. Slapdash pointed this out but local government is the most important government in people's lives and it's also the politics that people pay the least attention to. We have judges elected with under 10% participation, maybe less than 5%, and people wonder about the crime rate. Ferguson MO is like 60-70% black IIRC and yet the mayor, police chief and almost the whole council is white.

 

[timschochet]

Moving forward:

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day

Kind of interesting. We have all kinds of federal rules now for state elections, so obviously this has been altered. Based on this original language, it seems to defend Jim Crow and all of the other shenanigans individual states may want to pull. Also, according to this, each state could have their own different date, right? So Wisconsin could elect their Senator in March, Rhode Island in July, California in December, etc.

As to the second sentence, I guess the original conception wasn't for Congress to do very much, was it? Only meet once a year? Wonder what made them choose December?

 

[timschochet]

Moving forward:

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day

Kind of interesting. We have all kinds of federal rules now for state elections, so obviously this has been altered. Based on this original language, it seems to defend Jim Crow and all of the other shenanigans individual states may want to pull. Also, according to this, each state could have their own different date, right? So Wisconsin could elect their Senator in March, Rhode Island in July, California in December, etc.

As to the second sentence, I guess the original conception wasn't for Congress to do very much, was it? Only meet once a year? Wonder what made them choose December?

ETA- I'm also curious as to why the "place of choosing the Senator" was deemed an important right left to the states. I'm not even sure I understand what that means exactly.

 

[timschochet]

Waitaminnut. I probably didn't read that right. It's referring to the ENTIRE Congress- House and Senate meeting together? So we're talking about what's become the President's State of the Union address?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Moving forward:

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day

Kind of interesting. We have all kinds of federal rules now for state elections, so obviously this has been altered. Based on this original language, it seems to defend Jim Crow and all of the other shenanigans individual states may want to pull. Also, according to this, each state could have their own different date, right? So Wisconsin could elect their Senator in March, Rhode Island in July, California in December, etc.

As to the second sentence, I guess the original conception wasn't for Congress to do very much, was it? Only meet once a year? Wonder what made them choose December?

December was probably chosen because most people were farmers then. Not much farming going on in December.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yank, I kind of disagree on Princip & WW1 - can't absolve the arsonist because the house he lit on fire was an old tinderbox.

 

[otello]

1. d4 Nf6

2. Nf3 g6

3. Nbd2 Bg7

4. e4 d6

5. Bd3 O-O

6. O-O Nc6

7. c3 e5

8. h3 Nh5

9. d5 Ne7

10. Re1 Nf4

11. Nf1 f5

12. Bc4 Re8

13. Bxf4 exf4

14 e5 h6

15. Qd2 g5

16. Nd4This is a very complicated position and I ave no idea if I'm winning or losing. Probably the latter.

Bxe5

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yank, I kind of disagree on Princip & WW1 - can't absolve the arsonist because the house he lit on fire was an old tinderbox.

Solid metaphor.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Moving forward:

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day

Kind of interesting. We have all kinds of federal rules now for state elections, so obviously this has been altered. Based on this original language, it seems to defend Jim Crow and all of the other shenanigans individual states may want to pull. Also, according to this, each state could have their own different date, right? So Wisconsin could elect their Senator in March, Rhode Island in July, California in December, etc.

As to the second sentence, I guess the original conception wasn't for Congress to do very much, was it? Only meet once a year? Wonder what made them choose December?

ETA- I'm also curious as to why the "place of choosing the Senator" was deemed an important right left to the states. I'm not even sure I understand what that means exactly.

Tim, the electors for president are technically selected by the States as well. In case you haven't gotten the point yet everything is at the behest of the People or the States . The federal government has no real power or existence on its own outside what teh People and the States grant it. The Senators come from the States, they're State delegates (or were) and so it was up to the States how to choose them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Moving forward:

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day

Kind of interesting. We have all kinds of federal rules now for state elections, so obviously this has been altered. Based on this original language, it seems to defend Jim Crow and all of the other shenanigans individual states may want to pull. Also, according to this, each state could have their own different date, right? So Wisconsin could elect their Senator in March, Rhode Island in July, California in December, etc.

As to the second sentence, I guess the original conception wasn't for Congress to do very much, was it? Only meet once a year? Wonder what made them choose December?

They always intended a full session. Congress in a sense just meets once now, it's just one long ongoing session. - Election in November, show up next month in December, makes sense.

This now states:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. ... The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

(20th Am.)

Basically make the Congress consistent with the start of the year.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Waitaminnut. I probably didn't read that right. It's referring to the ENTIRE Congress- House and Senate meeting together? So we're talking about what's become the President's State of the Union address?

No, they're just saying when Congress starts its session, they have to start as a new Congress after every election by assembling. The House meets and the Senate meets, the SOTU is addressed elsewhere.

I think what bugs me about this section though is that the Founders were probably contemplating a House and a Senate that would argue in the chamber as a group. Someone would propose a bill, there would be debate, nearly everyone would be in the chamber together, there would be consideration, deliberation, argument, go back to the constituents, report back, and vote again mostly as a group.

Instead what we have today is the committee system. One Rep or Senator can block a bill from ever being considered. 5 or 6 can keep a bill penned up together.

We also have a situation in which a Speaker or Senate Leader can block a bill from being introduced.

Here's something else that's outrageous - reconciliation. We have a situation in which the House passes a bill and the Senate will pass its version of the bill.... and yet those two chambers cannot get together to reconcile that bill into a final law.

So even if someone has a good idea, it has to get to committee, it has to be voted on at committee, it has to pass committeee, it has to be introduced again, it has to escape cloture and filibustering, it has to have a quorum, it has to pass and then it has to get passed in the other chamber with the same hurdles and it also has to get past reconciliation.

And the debate part? It's hardly debate. Lone figures speak to a mostly empty chamber while reading from prepared text that essentially gets shown on cspan and watched by hardly anyone, most often when the decisions on how to vote have largely been made.

Not really what was pictured.

 

[jon_mx]

Moving forward:

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day

Kind of interesting. We have all kinds of federal rules now for state elections, so obviously this has been altered. Based on this original language, it seems to defend Jim Crow and all of the other shenanigans individual states may want to pull. Also, according to this, each state could have their own different date, right? So Wisconsin could elect their Senator in March, Rhode Island in July, California in December, etc.

As to the second sentence, I guess the original conception wasn't for Congress to do very much, was it? Only meet once a year? Wonder what made them choose December?

There are not that many rules that the federal government puts on elections except concerning donations and spending. The states have lots of flexibility except for the date and that the rules can not be changed after the fact. That was where the Florida Supremes tried to abuse and got ##### slapped for it by the U.S. SUPREME court.

 

[Mister CIA]

Met a guy today who is an Alabama, Spurs, Patriots fan.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

 

[mr roboto]

Met a guy today who is an Alabama, Spurs, Patriots fan.

I can't ####### stand people like that. Bet he cuts in line too.

 

[timschochet]

1. d4 Nf6

2. Nf3 g6

3. Nbd2 Bg7

4. e4 d6

5. Bd3 O-O

6. O-O Nc6

7. c3 e5

8. h3 Nh5

9. d5 Ne7

10. Re1 Nf4

11. Nf1 f5

12. Bc4 Re8

13. Bxf4 exf4

14 e5 h6

15. Qd2 g5

16. Nd4This is a very complicated position and I ave no idea if I'm winning or losing. Probably the latter.

Bxe5

stupid. Just a dumb blunder on my part. You've gotten too strong for me Otello. I resign.

 

[jon_mx]

Met a guy today who is an Alabama, Spurs, Patriots fan.

That is some serious loyalty. Patriots haven't won a super bowl in nearly 10 years.

 

[otello]

1. d4 Nf6

2. Nf3 g6

3. Nbd2 Bg7

4. e4 d6

5. Bd3 O-O

6. O-O Nc6

7. c3 e5

8. h3 Nh5

9. d5 Ne7

10. Re1 Nf4

11. Nf1 f5

12. Bc4 Re8

13. Bxf4 exf4

14 e5 h6

15. Qd2 g5

16. Nd4This is a very complicated position and I ave no idea if I'm winning or losing. Probably the latter.

Bxe5

stupid. Just a dumb blunder on my part.You've gotten too strong for me Otello. I resign.

You are only down a pawn.

 

[timschochet]

1. d4 Nf6

2. Nf3 g6

3. Nbd2 Bg7

4. e4 d6

5. Bd3 O-O

6. O-O Nc6

7. c3 e5

8. h3 Nh5

9. d5 Ne7

10. Re1 Nf4

11. Nf1 f5

12. Bc4 Re8

13. Bxf4 exf4

14 e5 h6

15. Qd2 g5

16. Nd4This is a very complicated position and I ave no idea if I'm winning or losing. Probably the latter.

Bxe5

stupid. Just a dumb blunder on my part.You've gotten too strong for me Otello. I resign.

You are only down a pawn.

Yeah but that pawn lost my whole position.

 

[timschochet]

My top 10 favorite novels in no particular order:

Shogun by James Clavell

Noble House by James Clavell

The Lords of Disciplne by Pat Conroy

Mila 18 by Leon Uris

Trinity by Leon Uris

Exodus by Leon Uris

The Man by Irving Wallace

The Stand by Stephen King

The Caine Mutiny by Herman Wouk

The Winds of War by Herman Wouk

War and Remembrance by Herman Wouk

 

[timschochet]

The last 60 minutes of Brett Hundley in a UCLA uniform are now upon us.

 

[timschochet]

In other football news, is Tennessee the best team in the SEC?

 

[otello]

1. d4 Nf6

2. Nf3 g6

3. Nbd2 Bg7

4. e4 d6

5. Bd3 O-O

6. O-O Nc6

7. c3 e5

8. h3 Nh5

9. d5 Ne7

10. Re1 Nf4

11. Nf1 f5

12. Bc4 Re8

13. Bxf4 exf4

14 e5 h6

15. Qd2 g5

16. Nd4This is a very complicated position and I ave no idea if I'm winning or losing. Probably the latter.

Bxe5

stupid. Just a dumb blunder on my part.You've gotten too strong for me Otello. I resign.

You are only down a pawn.

Yeah but that pawn lost my whole position.

ok. Shall we play again? You start.

 

[timschochet]

Sure. I may not respond as quickly though. Pretty busy this weekend.

1. d4

 

[hagmania]

The last 60 minutes of Brett Hundley in a UCLA uniform are now upon us.

Who's waiting in the wings?

In other football news, is Tennessee the best team in the SEC?

Maybe not next year, but two years down the road I'd be surprised if they weren't in the conference title discussion.

 

[timschochet]

The last 60 minutes of Brett Hundley in a UCLA uniform are now upon us.

Who's waiting in the wings?

In other football news, is Tennessee the best team in the SEC?

Maybe not next year, but two years down the road I'd be surprised if they weren't in the conference title discussion.

1. Either Rick Neuheisel's son (ugh) or a coming freshman named Josh Rosen who is supposed to be the #1 ranked passer in the country, from Bellflower, CA (St. John Bosco.)

2. I was kidding. Volunteer fans have got to be excited though.

 

[otello]

Sure. I may not respond as quickly though. Pretty busy this weekend.

1. d4

d5

 

[timschochet]

Sure. I may not respond as quickly though. Pretty busy this weekend.

1. d4

d5

2. e3

 

[otello]

Sure. I may not respond as quickly though. Pretty busy this weekend.

1. d4

d5

2. e3

Nf6

 

[timschochet]

Sure. I may not respond as quickly though. Pretty busy this weekend.

1. d4

d5

2. e3

Nf6

3. f4

 

[otello]

Sure. I may not respond as quickly though. Pretty busy this weekend.

1. d4

d5

2. e3

Nf6

3. f4

Bf5

 

[timschochet]

1. d4 d5

2. e3 Nf6

3. f4 Bf5

4. Bd3

 

[timschochet]

Given all of the record breaking numbers from yesterday for the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl, how stupid does college football look for waiting so long to have a playoff system?

 

[otello]

1. d4 d5

2. e3 Nf6

3. f4 Bf5

4. Bd3 e6

5.