Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-05-2020, 04:06 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
I'm confused here - are you saying that agreeing to count all slaves in the population of a state would have been more "humanizing" ?
Arguing that black people should have the vote would be humanizing. But again, neither the North nor the South were interested in slaves being humans ó just pawns for their own political ambitions.
  #52  
Old 05-05-2020, 06:26 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
How do you possibly win the popular vote but lose under NPVIC, since it doesn't take effect unless states with at least 270 electoral votes agree to it? And what did Tennessee's lawyers make it do?
For starters note that almost every Blue state has voted for NPVIC, while almost every Red state has voted against it. This creates an instability: if there's defection it will be much more likely to adversely affect the Blues, not the Reds.

Hypothetical: Tennessee joins the NPVIC, pushing it over 270; the Blues campaign heavily in California and New York rounding up huge totals in CA and NY but losing some Rust Belt states that didn't join the NPVIC. It doesn't matter; CNN announces that the Ds win the popular vote.

But wait! Allegations from California claim that aliens were allowed to vote. Double-voting in Chicago. The Ds running NYC threw hundreds of ballots into the East River. In a normal election it wouldn't matter, but now every vote counts. The election is close and the government of Tennessee declares that with these corrections, the Reds win popular vote

Who's to stop them? The sovereign state of Tennessee has control over its electoral votes, not the Feds, not the NPVIC. The sealed votes are opened together so the Blue states may not even have time to file lawsuits. Maybe Scotus will step in and prevent frauds, maybe not. Either way, the election will be settled by lawyers, not voters.
  #53  
Old 05-05-2020, 08:09 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
For starters note that almost every Blue state has voted for NPVIC, while almost every Red state has voted against it. This creates an instability: if there's defection it will be much more likely to adversely affect the Blues, not the Reds.

Hypothetical: Tennessee joins the NPVIC, pushing it over 270; the Blues campaign heavily in California and New York rounding up huge totals in CA and NY but losing some Rust Belt states that didn't join the NPVIC. It doesn't matter; CNN announces that the Ds win the popular vote.

But wait! Allegations from California claim that aliens were allowed to vote. Double-voting in Chicago. The Ds running NYC threw hundreds of ballots into the East River. In a normal election it wouldn't matter, but now every vote counts. The election is close and the government of Tennessee declares that with these corrections, the Reds win popular vote

Who's to stop them? The sovereign state of Tennessee has control over its electoral votes, not the Feds, not the NPVIC. The sealed votes are opened together so the Blue states may not even have time to file lawsuits. Maybe Scotus will step in and prevent frauds, maybe not. Either way, the election will be settled by lawyers, not voters.
If you check out any of the existing threads that deal with NPVIC, you will see that something like this is my main problem with it as well, although I see something like this happening: a (presumably red) state's legislature passes, and its governor signs, a law saying that, prior to January 21 following a Presidential election, the only results that can be released from that state are (a) the number of voters and (b) who got the most votes. This doesn't affect just that state, but all states in the compact, as now nobody knows for certain who won the popular vote.
  #54  
Old 05-05-2020, 10:02 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Arguing that black people should have the vote would be humanizing.
In those days, only property owners voted. Criticizing the framers of the Constitution for not arguing that slaves should be able to vote makes as much sense as faulting them for not insisting Idaho be admitted to the Union.
  #55  
Old 05-06-2020, 01:24 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Arguing that black people should have the vote would be humanizing. But again, neither the North nor the South were interested in slaves being humans ó just pawns for their own political ambitions.
Counting slaves as residents would give Southern states substantially more congressional representatives, to which Northern states would never agree. Not counting slaves would entitle the South to many FEWER reps, to which THEY would never agree. Injuns were excluded by counting neither them nor their slaves. Counting slaves of free residents as fractional humans was a necessary compromise to establish the Union. Consequences remain.

Back to OP. " Lessening the inequities" is AKA "leveling the playing field" which reminds me of Ambrose Bierce's definition: "PRESIDENCY, n. The greased pig in the field game of American politics." Yes, politics are sweaty-filthy. Only the numb survive.

Anyway, leveling the playing field for the presidential match requires trashing the US vote-for-electors system (no "electoral college" exists). But that will not happen anytime soon unless Mr Kim fortuitously nukes DC at an appropriate moment. So we are stuck with a rigged game, further fixed if states' rulers decide to ignore popular votes entirely. What, can they do that? Art.II Sec.1 Par.2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors... A one-party state can overrule voters. The national election day is merely a show.
  #56  
Old 05-06-2020, 01:53 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Details - for example, a bill number?
My comment about other pending legislation doing "so much more" was not on point with the original post and should not have been made. It is more appropriate for a more general discussion of congressional representation.

Apologies to all.
  #57  
Old 05-06-2020, 02:27 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
In those days, only property owners voted. Criticizing the framers of the Constitution for not arguing that slaves should be able to vote makes as much sense as faulting them for not insisting Idaho be admitted to the Union.
If you are agreeing that Northerns were also racists, then youíre just restating my point in slightly different words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Counting slaves as residents would give Southern states substantially more congressional representatives, to which Northern states would never agree. Not counting slaves would entitle the South to many FEWER reps, to which THEY would never agree. Injuns were excluded by counting neither them nor their slaves. Counting slaves of free residents as fractional humans was a necessary compromise to establish the Union. Consequences remain.
Yes, a bunch of racists of varying degrees made racist compromises to establish the country. Iím explicitly rejecting the argument that the North were good guys to argue that slaves arenít people for the direct purpose of maximizing their own political power. They advocated a racist policy to counter other racist policies to end up with a racist compromise. There was no good side in this compromise; everyone sucked there.
  #58  
Old 05-06-2020, 05:33 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,102
A lot of the defense of the EC seems to be constructed after the fact to rationalize the defenders preferred outcome and could just as easily and readily be expressed as: "My guy wu-un. Neener, neener, neener."
  #59  
Old 05-06-2020, 10:30 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 16,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
A lot of the defense of the EC seems to be constructed after the fact to rationalize the defenders preferred outcome and could just as easily and readily be expressed as: "My guy wu-un. Neener, neener, neener."
Yup, if 2000 had featured a contested race in Tennessee run by Gov. Tipper Gore and went to a Supreme Court with a 5/4 liberal majority of judges appointed by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, the rhetoric would be a lot different.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #60  
Old 05-06-2020, 11:52 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Yes, a bunch of racists of varying degrees made racist compromises to establish the country. Iím explicitly rejecting the argument that the North were good guys to argue that slaves arenít people for the direct purpose of maximizing their own political power. They advocated a racist policy to counter other racist policies to end up with a racist compromise. There was no good side in this compromise; everyone sucked there.
Therefore the US is illegitimate and must be disbanded, right? Because racist bargains among rich scalawags. That's your logical conclusion. Good luck there.

Did I ever say the North was Good Goys? Where? The Free States did end slavery without a war. The War of Southern Treason was started by Bad Boys specifically to maintain slavery, the cause proclaimed in the rebel states' secession declarations. US Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, Lt.Col. Robert E.Lee, and their treasonous gang of oath-breaking deserters fought for slavery, like the Alamo scumbags.

Back to topic. The US electoral system skews heavily (R) which installs luzers. As a tool to ensure the consent of the governed, it's broken. What's your repair plan?
  #61  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:22 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Oh yes, I hate this country. You got me there. I mean, just because Iíve sworn and upheld an oath for pretty much my entire professional career to uphold the Constitution, my views that the 3/5th Compromise was a embarrassing tragedy in which all parties to it treated African Americans as pawns for their own political advantage is really the smoking gun evidence that you need to conclude that Iím an enemy of this country. Great sleuthing there, man, you really nailed me. I hope you apply this incredible detective work to other critical problems of our time, like finding out just how many Communists there are in the State Department.

Whatís my answer? The only thing that fixes the problem is, sadly, amending the Constitution. The compact between a handful of states is, IMO, not legal because it would likely lack congressional authorization. The idea of increasing the size of the House is meritorious on its own rights, because it helps ameliorate the partisan advantage found through gerrymandering, but it really does little to address the electoral college issue. If the size of the House were doubled, Trump still would have won, 547 to 428.

The fact is that the Framers had a few really good ideas, a few really bad ones, and a few that were good for their time but have aged like milk. The Constitution is a political document, and inherently that means it contains some bad decisions that ought to be corrected... the trouble is, they made it equally as hard to eliminate the great parts (yay!) as to eliminate the horrible mistakes (boo!).
  #62  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:14 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamatoTwinkie View Post
I think septimus is envisioning a scenario where Tennessee agrees to the NPVIC but then changes their mind after everyone else has already submitted their votes (and votes according to who the majority of Tennessee wants). Assuming Tennessee manages to pull this off legally, its hard for me to see how this could change the end result from a "normal" Electoral College vote. It doesn't matter how many states sign in or subsequently back out of the NPVIC, you can't get a scenario where a candidate somehow loses both the normal EC vote and the popular vote and still wins.
It may seem a far-fetched scenario, but the one I outline works if Tennessee's popular vote is for the D's. The GOP Governor doesn't cast his evs for the R because R's won Tennessee! He votes for the R because he's following the Compact but believes (or pretends to believe) that the R's won the nationwide popular vote.

Even setting aside that unlikely scenario ó even if we stipulate that the chosen President will always be either the traditional EC winner or the popular winner ó the NPVIC remains completely flawed. Let me explain why:

First note that the NPVIC has no utility whatsoever unless the traditional EC winner and the popular winner are different people. We may as well assume that those winners are split for discussion ó otherwise the whole Compact is pointless.

Let's also stipulate that one Party ó call them the Mules ó tends to follow rules and respect justice. Assume the other party ó call them the Pachyderms ó will do anything they can think of to cheat.

Given these assumptions, if the Mules win the traditional EC, but the Pachyderms win the popular vote, the Pachyderms win. If the Pachyderms win the traditional EC and the Mules win the popular vote, the Pachyderms will cheat their way to victory. If the Mules win both the traditional EC and the popular vote, will the Pachyderms have a successful way to cheat? Probably not, but I've already given a scenario where even that happens.

NPVIC. Just say no.
  #63  
Old 05-07-2020, 12:41 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
It may seem a far-fetched scenario, but the one I outline works if Tennessee's popular vote is for the D's. The GOP Governor doesn't cast his evs for the R because R's won Tennessee! He votes for the R because he's following the Compact but believes (or pretends to believe) that the R's won the nationwide popular vote.
It'd be one thing for a governor to pull off something like that if the result was aligned with the wishes of the majority of his/her state, but a governor shamelessly going against the will of his/her own voters is just committing career suicide for the next election. While anything is possible (I think Gavin Newsom could conceivably convince the CA state legislature to pass a bill automatically giving all of the state's EC votes to Trump regardless of the CA vote) , I don't think that scenario is credible.
  #64  
Old 05-07-2020, 01:18 PM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,612
While the electoral college is complete trash, the power of the Senate is by far the worst electoral problem that needs fixing. Beyond giving outsided influence to empty farm land in electing the president, it also gives rural states vote power over all legislation and appointments. It would be possible for something like 25% of the population to stonewall all legislation, SCOTUS appointments, etc. Yeah yeah, it's in the constitution, but pretty much all power that can be stripped from the Senate should be and transferred to the House.

That, giving DC and PR statehood, expanding the size of the House, having independent districting commissions (abolishing gerrymandering), implementing ranked choice voting, having set lengths of judicial appointments, automatic voter registration/national vote by mail, etc. There's a lot to be fixed, but since doing so would require the GOP doing what is right, we're fucked until demographics overwhelm the structural advantage the GOP has. Hopefully the SCOTUS/the rest of the country isn't fucked beyond saving by that point.
  #65  
Old 05-07-2020, 02:26 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
While the electoral college is complete trash, the power of the Senate is by far the worst electoral problem that needs fixing. Beyond giving outsided influence to empty farm land in electing the president, it also gives rural states vote power over all legislation and appointments. It would be possible for something like 25% of the population to stonewall all legislation, SCOTUS appointments, etc. Yeah yeah, it's in the constitution, but pretty much all power that can be stripped from the Senate should be and transferred to the House.
I've said this much before in other threads, but I think there is certain value conceptually behind ensuring that any laws passed by the government also have concurrence from at least 26/50 of the states (kinda-sorta guaranteed by the Senate). It'd be difficult to really call ourselves the United States otherwise, if a minority of states could effectively shut out the majority from all decision-making ability.

I think people's opinion of the EC (and the senate) is predicated on how they feel about the concept of federalism. Of states as as individual sovereign units capable of making their own decisions, and not just a collection of people that happen to reside in arbitrary borders. 50 equal stars on the flag, E pluribus unum, and all that jazz.

If personal "fairness" is really the ultimate goal here, federalism and the states are a clear obstruction to that. Borders need to be redrawn (to match population size) or eliminated altogether, most powers (beyond clearly local decision making) need to be transferred to the national government, and the Senate should be abolished.
  #66  
Old 05-07-2020, 03:48 PM
ChickenLegs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 607
I'm in favor of revising the electoral college rules.

"One state, one vote" is my preference. After all, we're the United STATES of America. Why should some states be more equal than others?
  #67  
Old 05-07-2020, 04:34 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickenLegs View Post
I'm in favor of revising the electoral college rules.

"One state, one vote" is my preference. After all, we're the United STATES of America. Why should some states be more equal than others?
Well, then letís redraw California into 54 new states so that they are equal to Wyoming. It is the UNITED States of America, right?
  #68  
Old 05-07-2020, 04:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickenLegs View Post
I'm in favor of revising the electoral college rules.

"One state, one vote" is my preference. After all, we're the United STATES of America. Why should some states be more equal than others?
States shouldn't have any votes. People should have votes. "States rights" has never been about anything except the right to rape and torture. "States rights" is what got us slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and nothing worthwhile.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #69  
Old 05-07-2020, 05:32 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
States shouldn't have any votes. People should have votes. "States rights" has never been about anything except the right to rape and torture. "States rights" is what got us slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and nothing worthwhile.
Legal gambling, legal weed even legal abortion pre Roe v Wade. States rights allow a huge and diverse country to have diverse ways of governance. States rights allow more rural states to have laws that better reflect their reality. NYC gun control would be a totalitarian overreach in most of the country but the tyranny of majority rule, right?
  #70  
Old 05-07-2020, 05:39 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,853
The framers of the constitution did not anticipate parties. Nor that voters would choose the president. In fact, it was ancicipated that the electoral college would rarely have a majority and that it would be more like a nominating convention. The real election would take place in the house with each state having one vote. Rhode Island would have as much say as NY. What could be fairer than that?

In fact, the US constitution was so broken that no other country has emulated it. It was probably the first constitution of a federation in the world. The Swiss tell me that their 1815 constitution was modeled on that of the US. Maybe, but the results are entirely different. The executive consists of a council of 7, one of whom is designated for a year at a time as president, but that is purely a ceremonial title. He or she is still only one of the seven and the title rotates. It is also, I believe, relatively easy to amend. When they wanted to allow women to vote (which happened only in 1971--I was living there at the time) it still took only a vote of the whole country to ratify it.

The real problem with the constitution isn't so much that it is a flaw document, but that the flews are nearly cast in stone.
  #71  
Old 05-08-2020, 09:30 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
If you are agreeing that Northerns were also racists, then youíre just restating my point in slightly different words.
My position is that condemning people of two centuries ago for not sharing your own worldview is not a productive - or even notably rational - approach.

The past is a different place - attitudes change with time.
  #72  
Old 05-08-2020, 10:02 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
My position is that condemning people of two centuries ago for not sharing your own worldview is not a productive - or even notably rational - approach.

The past is a different place - attitudes change with time.
Saying that the Founding Fathers were racists isnít necessarily a condemnation, itís a fact. When talking about history, shouldnít we deal with facts?
  #73  
Old 05-08-2020, 10:13 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by YamatoTwinkie View Post
It'd be one thing for a governor to pull off something like that if the result was aligned with the wishes of the majority of his/her state, but a governor shamelessly going against the will of his/her own voters is just committing career suicide for the next election. While anything is possible (I think Gavin Newsom could conceivably convince the CA state legislature to pass a bill automatically giving all of the state's EC votes to Trump regardless of the CA vote) , I don't think that scenario is credible.
Again: I've stipulated that scenario to be unlikely. The real problem with NPVIC is that the Rs win if they win EITHER the popular vote OR the traditional EC vote.
  #74  
Old 05-08-2020, 06:01 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Saying that the Founding Fathers were racists isnít necessarily a condemnation, itís a fact. When talking about history, shouldnít we deal with facts?
The founders were rich, racist, corrupt scumbags. Every head on Mt Rushmore is a rich & corrupt (except Lincoln) racist scumbag. The vast majority of US presidents have been rich, corrupt, racist scumbags. Some constitutional amendments tried to deal with the race/slavery issue but enforcement has been spotty because most enforcers have been (fairly) rich racist scumbags. The US has been a land of racist scumbags since the first colonial days, and has earned a global reputation for corruption since the beginning.

So yes, a total rewrite is necessary. Good luck with that.

This leads back to topic: How to level the presidential playing field? Answer: the hard way - when enough GOP pols croak and their gerrymanderings and suppressions are reversed, pass an amendment making presidential races exactly the same as EVERY other fucking American election (except certain state propositions): Whoever gets the most votes, wins. Delete Art.II Sec.1 Par.2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors... which lets states override voters.

But I doubt that will occur. US politics are too toxic. We are fucking doomed.
  #75  
Old 05-08-2020, 06:11 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
The founders were rich, racist, corrupt scumbags. Every head on Mt Rushmore is a rich & corrupt (except Lincoln) racist scumbag. The vast majority of US presidents have been rich, corrupt, racist scumbags. Some constitutional amendments tried to deal with the race/slavery issue but enforcement has been spotty because most enforcers have been (fairly) rich racist scumbags. The US has been a land of racist scumbags since the first colonial days, and has earned a global reputation for corruption since the beginning.

So yes, a total rewrite is necessary. Good luck with that.

This leads back to topic: How to level the presidential playing field? Answer: the hard way - when enough GOP pols croak and their gerrymanderings and suppressions are reversed, pass an amendment making presidential races exactly the same as EVERY other fucking American election (except certain state propositions): Whoever gets the most votes, wins. Delete Art.II Sec.1 Par.2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors... which lets states override voters.

But I doubt that will occur. US politics are too toxic. We are fucking doomed.
You criticize me for saying the 3/5 Compromise was a product of racism, then you agree it was.

Then you criticize me for saying this part of the Constitution should be changed; and then you say it should be changed.

Whatís next, you tell me to use English when I post?
  #76  
Old 05-10-2020, 04:07 AM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You criticize me for saying the 3/5 Compromise was a product of racism, then you agree it was.

Then you criticize me for saying this part of the Constitution should be changed; and then you say it should be changed.

Whatís next, you tell me to use English when I post?
Where did I criticize you? Quotes, please.
  #77  
Old 05-10-2020, 04:35 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 14,041
Adding more fuel to the fire, apportionment is based on residents and not citizens. Numberwise, illegal immigrants are about 3.35% of the population or about 14 to 15 Representatives. This means states with high numbers of illegal immigrants benefit with a significant number of electoral votes.
  #78  
Old 05-10-2020, 05:57 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Where did I criticize you? Quotes, please.
You know what you wrote. You accused me of wanting to throw away the Constitution and other bullshit.
  #79  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:18 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You know what you wrote. You accused me of wanting to throw away the Constitution and other bullshit.
IOW you can't quote my attacks because ain't any. Noted.
  #80  
Old 05-10-2020, 03:30 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 28,143
I donít like being told to do work by someone misrepresenting my position.

Note that.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017