[KaiserJeep]

Well said, Newfie. I would even go a step further and condemn - even boycott in egregious cases - media that attempt to usurp due process.

[Plantagenet]

I cry no tears for Northam but lament the loss of process. Mob rules are a dangerous thing, kinda like lynchings.

Northam is a racist buffoon. His latest statement that slaves brought to America were actually "indentured servants" is so idiotic its unbelievable----but if the people of Virginia want a racist buffoon as their governor, then that is their privilege.

The Lt. Governor of Virginia is another matter. He has been credibly accused of two sexual assaults----both were rapes involving penetration. If the woman are to be believed (and I find their accounts credible) then Lt. Governor Fairfax is a dangerous sexual predator who shouldn't be trusted with a position of power.

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

I used to think that Trump had very little chance of being reelected. This last week has put that opinion very much in doubt. Trump can say that the Dems have blocked him on the wall and they, almost to a candidate, have embraced the Green new Deal getting rid of ICE cars and airplanes etc..
Trump can run on a choice: build a wall or/kill all the farting cows!
I think the wall will win.

[mmasters]

The democratic party has no real strategy at this point, it's all racist, sexist, PC, tax the wealthy, open borders and socialism. Oh and they hate Trump with a passion. I even saw a news report some kid in Cali is going to cut off his penis if Trump builds a wall.

[Newfie]

I think the most credible candidate the D’s have is Howard Schultz. Maybe instead of fighting him they should nominate him.

[Cog]

Schultz is a white dude. He doesn't check off any of the victim class requirements.

[vtsnowedin]

I think the most credible candidate the D’s have is Howard Schultz. Maybe instead of fighting him they should nominate him.

It would be funny if he won in Iowa or Hew Hampshire. Both states allow write ins.

[lpetrich]

I think the most credible candidate the D’s have is Howard Schultz. Maybe instead of fighting him they should nominate him.

Why should they do that? We already have one billionaire president with delusions of competence.

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-
Why should they do that? We already have one billionaire president with delusions of competence.

The problem is that the boastful millionaire is outperforming the traditional politicians at the job of POTUS. Believe me when I say this: the US Constitution does not say only politicians can be POTUS, nor that the POTUS must not PO his political opposition, nor that he must be perceived to be a nice guy. Trump has proved that you can PO the media and still win the election, if you indulge in social media. The nerve of such a person, to shake up the comfortable media hacks and political pundits....then to actually keep campaign promioses, and make traditional politicians look bad....

[Newfie]

I think the most credible candidate the D’s have is Howard Schultz. Maybe instead of fighting him they should nominate him.

Why should they do that? We already have one billionaire president with delusions of competence.

Because then they might have a credible candidate.

[Cog]

Schultz should run as an independent.

[Newfie]

Probably the best for the country. If he is any good he could stand in stark contrast to the opposing sides, illuminate the weakness and corruption of the party system.

I was pointing out what would be best for the Democrats, not the USA.

[lpetrich]

Here is the canonical text of the Green New Deal resolution. It is from Congress's website, not Fox News, so be prepared.

H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress Go to the "Text" tab for the full text of it. There is a lot in it, and I will quote its summary:

This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of

• achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;
• establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
• investing in infrastructure and industry;
• securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and
• promoting justice and equality.

The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including

• building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
• upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
• removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
• cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
• ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and
• providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.

[lpetrich]

There is a lot in this GND resolution, and I've selected out some of the most relevant parts for here:

(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—

(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and

(ii) by deploying new capacity;

(D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and “smart” power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity;

(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

(F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;

...

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and

(iii) high-speed rail;

I must concede that it is a lot to do in that resolution's proposed timespan of 10 years.

[lpetrich]

(on Howard Schultz...)

Because then they might have a credible candidate.

What makes him a credible candidate? Given how Democrats do not have much love for Michael Bloomberg, a similar candidate, I don't expect him to get very far.

[lpetrich]

(Howard Schultz...)

Probably the best for the country. If he is any good he could stand in stark contrast to the opposing sides, illuminate the weakness and corruption of the party system.

There is a way to do that. Make the election system more multiparty-friendly. That will involve moving away from first-past-the-post elections. There are several ways to do that.

Runoff elections, also called the two-ballot system. In the first election, all the candidates compete. Then in the second election, the top two compete. Already done in several places, at least if no candidate wins a majority. Usually requires additional elections. However, the California and Washington "Top Two" system is a runoff system where the first election is in the primaries and the second election is in the main election.

Instant Runoff Voting, or the Alternative Vote. One ranks the candidates by preference and the ballots are counted by the following fashion:

In each round of counting, one counts up the top preferences. If any candidate wins a majority, then that candidate wins. Otherwise, drop the candidate with the fewest votes, and in subsequent counts, ignore that candidate. If that candidate was first in some ballot, for instance, then use the next preference in future counts.

Thus, if one likes the Libertarian Party and considers the Republican Party a tolerable fallback, one can make one's top preference the Libertarian and one's next preference a Republican. So if the Libertarian is removed from the counting because of not much support, one will still have a vote for the Republican.

[Plantagenet]

(on Howard Schultz...).....What makes him a credible candidate?

1. He is a very intelligent man with a very compelling personal story. Schultz grew up in the projects, worked hard and has become a success. He clearly great skills at running a large organization and at analyzing complex problems. He personifies the American dream, at a time when many Americans are increasingly hopeless about their own economic prospect.

2. He makes cogent and rational criticisms of the foolishness coming both the Rs and the Ds, which is appealing to many Americans.

3. He is a billionaire who can self-fund a run for president.

Contrast the life stories of self-made man Howard Schultz with the leading D candidate, Kamala Harris, who slept her way to the top, or with Trump who was born rich and Schultz looks pretty darn good.

Cheers!

[lpetrich]

Those were single-seat methods. For multiseat bodies like legislatures, one can do better, with multiseat methods. One's vote counts toward candidates for several seats at once.

Single Transferable Vote, like instant runoff voting, but with multiple seats. One first calculates a victory quota that is (total votes) / ((number of seats) + 1), and one then does several rounds of the following.

Count the top preferences, and if any candidate gets at least (victory quota) votes, then that candidate wins and gets seated. In that case, one removes from the count (victory quota) of that candidate's ballots, or else weights their ballots by (excess votes) / (total votes). If no candidate won, then drop the candidate who got the smallest number of top preferences. Remove both winners and losers from the count in subsequent rounds.

Party List. Each party gets a number of seats in proportion to how many votes that it received. The name is from the common tradition of parties publishing lists of candidates that they want seated.

Mixed Member. The body's seats are divided into district seats and list seats, and each voter votes for a district candidate and a party. The district seats are filled in single-member-district fashion, and the list seats are filled to try to make the overall count proportional.

Parallel Voting. Like mixed-member, but the list seats are made proportional on their own.

[lpetrich]

(on Howard Schultz...).....What makes him a credible candidate?

1. He is a very intelligent man with a very compelling personal story. Schultz grew up in the projects, worked hard and has become a success. He clearly great skills at running a large organization and at analyzing complex problems. He personifies the American dream, at a time when many Americans are increasingly hopeless about their own economic prospect.

As if everybody can create a big business empire at the same time.

That is also a rather dangerous game to play, because by that standard, the best candidate is Oprah Winfrey. She is a black woman who came from a genuinely poor family.

2. He makes cogent and rational criticisms of the foolishness coming both the Rs and the Ds, which is appealing to many Americans.

Where has he criticized anything that Republican politicians have ever done? All I've seen from him are criticisms of Democrats.

3. He is a billionaire who can self-fund a run for president.

Contrast the life stories of self-made man Howard Schultz with the leading D candidate, Kamala Harris, who slept her way to the top, or with Trump who was born rich and Schultz looks pretty darn good.

Congratulations for conceding that Donald Trump had a big head start. With his record of business failures, he rather evidently needed it.

[Newfie]

Ipetrich,

There is a GND thread. Why not post your GND stuff there.