Last war’s turkey bacon.

I wasn’t suggesting that changing it so would be easy or simple. The point of the thread thus far was discussing the legality and effectiveness of such a compact.

Someone suggested that as it is now it would be challenged and overturned by the courts. I argued that it is well within the bounds of the language in the constitution and legal precedent.

And someone else suggested that would all but be overturned if any state withheld their voting numbers or if any state in the compact withdrew. I was agreeing that it could be stymied by such things under the current terms of the compact, but also pointing out that the compact can be changed by those in it to make it more resilient/impervious to external sabotage and to mitigate the risks of a schism while still remaining in constitutional bounds.

The difficulty of that change is not nothing, for sure, but still far easier than a constitutional amendment.

It doesnt now. Nothing stops them from agreeing to change the compact though.

In such cases as the popular vote cannot be determined, or should enough members withdraw such that the majority of Electors no longer fall under the compact, the states can just fall back to their previous methods for determining their elector distribution. That’s already established in the compact for the latter case, if I recall, though I don’t know that they’ve a specific provision for another state not publishing their popular vote count. But regardless, worst case scenario, it can just default back to how it already is now.

That would cause the compact to be ineffective, certainly, but still not constitutionally unsound or illegal.

But even that isn’t really a true limitation. If they wanted to, they could also just decide to only consider the officially published vote counts of all the states that choose to report it to keep any rogue states from holding the compact hostage. Or they could even just only count the votes of those states in the compact if they so collectively chose, to. I doubt they would, but they could. Again, they have unbound latitude here. Hell, if they were so inclined they could collectively decide to elect the president with the first name in alphabetical order. What’s to stop them?

Article II, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

It seems pretty cut and dry to me. It gives absolutely no guard rails, limits, directives, or even suggestions as to how those states’ legislatures may appoint Electors. They can do it “in such manner as [they] may direct”. The states have the latitude to decide how to assign and direct their Electors however they see fit.

It’s already enough latitude that different states at different times have decided A) to give an elector to the winner of each district and two to the winner of that statewide winner, B) to give them all to the statewide winner, C) to have the legislature decide without a popular vote, and D) to hold a state vote and then ignore it anyway and let the legislature decide instead. And 13 states, still, fully allow individual “faithless” Electors to vote against their assigned/pledged candidate, and only 14 states will actually void and replace the electors who misplaced their vote (the other states where it is disallowed just give them a fine or criminally charge them but still let their vote stand)…

If that’s the kind of latitude that is already settled law, then it would be absolutely insane to draw the line at assigning Electors on the will of the whole nation, i.e. of the entire body of people who has a pony in this race, and based on a compact that the states representing the majority of Americans agreed upon. It doesn’t disenfranchise anyone, the current system does that.

I’m sure that it will be challenged. But there is absolutely no legal justification to overturn it.

But I doubt Henry Cavill would volunteer for this particular task.

I mean… had anyone asked? Maybe offer him some Warhammer minis?

That seems to be a matter of debate or denominational disagreement. I was definitely taught that it was all lying in the church I grew up in. But I’m also sure that I probably, at some point growing up, blamed someone else for something that I did to avoid trouble.

Have I lied? … yeah. So have you. So has everybody. Hell, it’s a significant child development stage.

A person has to have goals in life

I mean, in all fairness, who isn’t batting at least 6 or 7 of the ten? I haven’t committed murder, and assuming you don’t subscribe to the notion that lustful thoughts = adultery, I haven’t done that either. The honoring your mother and father thing also depends on where you draw the line. I’ve never cursed their names, or anything. But I’ve definitely disobeyed and argued with them. I’ve definitely done the rest. So I’m 7-8ish myself, maybe 9 if you’re a stickler and a prude.

So do I, an American

There are scientific discoveries regarding both the moon and our own planet that only happened because of the apollo missions. The space race was also the catalyst that led to advanced technologies we use every day, like GPS, water filtration systems, and insulin pumps. It also contributed to electrical engineering and material science advancement for miniaturizing electronics, solar cells, digital thermometers and mammograms, digitial imaging sensors, cordless power tools, smoke detectors, fire-resistant material, durable parachute materials, scratch resistant coatings, memory foam, etc.

Even if you’re a cynic that has no respect for exploration or scientific endeavor, or minimizes the space race to a “dumb, authoritarian dick measuring contest” (which don’t get me wrong, it was also that, at first), the real world advancements that we spawned from these endeavors is pretty crazy. Turns out, when you let scientists and engineers push beyond what people have done before, beyond where they have gone before, and then let them iterate on that process to do it better next time, they can do some pretty amazing things.

And we did that with the technology of the 60’s - 80’s. We have had 40+ years of advancement now to push our endeavors further, and new challenges in mind for long term settlement, orbital launches, geological research, etc. We can only guess what advancements will come from having the challenges of space exploration pushing tech advancements again instead of the exclusively consumer-driven and military-driven shit we’ve seen over the last few decades.

Kamala. Exit the echo chamber. Read the room. We need change, not a return to the status quo that gave us Trump 2.0. Don’t be an opportunist.

And this will ruin his prospects of being elected by Republicans, right?.. RIGHT!?

If you don’t find it of value to contribute to preventing Trump, fascism, war, mass deportation, destruction of science and healthcare and justice, further wealth concentration, etc. well, your choices are rational from your perspective, I guess. Wrong, and misguided, but rational.

It’s your prerogative to vote against all rationality and your own interests. Just know that you’re doing absolutely nothing of value.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step

“only a little bit of death and destruction” is not an effective counter-message to maximum death and destruction.

But it fucking should be. I would also agree that no death and destruction is all that is acceptable. It’s really disheartening that that was not a realistic choice. But if you’re on the trolley heading towards total death and destruction and pulling the lever takes you to a little bit of death and destruction, you pull that fucking lever. You don’t take the “moral high ground” and tear down the Trump tracks while criticizing the other option for not being a good enough choice and take your passengers with you. It mystifies me that anyone on the left disagrees with that.

Perfect is the enemy of good. And good is the enemy of better. If you have no good choice, you pick the better choice. Period.

You’re not the only problem. But you are sure as shit one of them.

So the people that convinced him are 100% at fault? He’s 0% at fault? That how we’re mathing that? So you’re saying that he’s a brainless baby that just agrees to whatever shit the last ass kisser said to him? Well at least we agree on that.