Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
O.T.: An extraordinarily dark day in American history...
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Also I think nationwide pressure for getting rid of the electoral college system might be more successful than people think, particularly after the events of the last election. It's a complicated system, that's hard to defend and clearly unfair. Forcing your enemies to defend the indefensible is never bad strategy. As I said - worst case you keep the Republicans occupied with trying to hand onto that, rather than getting up to worse mischief. Best case you build sufficient public pressure that they have to do something. You don't get nothing if you fight, and the fatalism of Democrats is a little pathetic.
Your statements are very... funny? Actually, cold war rhetoric are strong here
Cold war rhetoric and trying to restart the cold war are very different things.
I think the question you're afraid to ask: Are you actually Glenn Greenwald?
The U.S. can’t even get the E.R.A. ratified (which guarantees women equal rights). You would need too many states to agree to give up their disproportionate influence on the Presidential vote than are willing to do it. Just look at what just happened as regards ratifying the certified votes of the 50 states. The notion that all Americans are inherently fair and will give up their self-interest to serve the greater good sadly doesn’t track with reality. Over 40% of Americans continued to support Trump even after his lies and foot-dragging on the pandemic were clearly by any rational standard a big part of the pandemic remaining out of control.
There is a deep cultural divide in this country. And a significant minority (too many to pass a constitutional amendment since that requires a super majority of states) do not think of the majority as being legitimate. Remember that well over half the republicans in congress voted to nullify the votes of the majority.
At some time in the distant future one might be able to pass such an amendment. I don’t see any evidence that it would be possible now. The unfairness is seen as legitimate in the states that benefit. They believe that their voice SHOULD balance out the majority.
You won't know if you don't try. You also don't know what will happen if you do try. People's opinions are not set in stone, they can be changed. But if you don't try to change them (or worse let the Republicans change their opinions - which is what is happening today), then sure. It's hopeless.
The other thing is that such a fight wouldn't just be about changing the electoral college, but about fixing other things and done right increasing the number of people who vote/can vote. Even if you lost that fight, anything you won would be a victory. The right understand this, some of the left understand this. The center seem incapable of understanding this.
As there was on civil rights. The divide was deeper and more intractable. All the arguments you're using now were used by liberals then. And yet. It took years of organization and work, but without that work it would never have happened.
The right have managed to roll back abortion rights significantly despite the fact that the vast majority of the country support those rights. People overestimate the power of voting, and underestimate the power of organization.
True - I didn't say it could be done overnight, or even with the current congress. It would take years of work, most of it outside the electoral process. But that work could start now, and now would be an excellent time to begin (actually 2016 would have been better - but hey Russia, amirite).
In terms of the public. There is a huge minority that don't vote. There's a large minority that do vote, but are almost completely disengaged from politics (they're called floating voters - they don't really pay attention to politics, or know much about them). When we talk about Republicans what we're really talking about is maybe 50% of voters (really less as floating voters are a thing), which is 30% of the population if you're being generous. Yes it's unevenly distributed, but the majorities in most Republican states are not that large.
There are southern Republicans who might vote Democrat if they offered something they wanted, and didn't keep sending pretty boy lawyers with soft hands.
I didn't say it was possible right now. I said if people started organizing NOW in order to make this change happen it might be possible. If they don't organize it will never happen. These things can happen in time, but it takes years of work. I see little evidence that liberals are prepared to put that work in (People on the left are, and have been, but they get little support from the Democratic party - and in many cases have to actively fight them).
Cian
Robert Reich had a very good video produced earlier this year about how to make the Electoral College irrelevant: States that join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could circumvent the arduous Constitutional amendment all pass laws saying that regardless of their state's voting outcome, they agree that their electoral votes will go to the winner of the popular vote.
Now, this made a lot more sense when there was logic behind this: the winner of the popular vote should be the president! But it technically is subverting the will of the states. I fear we're stuck with the Electoral College....
Bhaskar Sunkara and Jane McAlevey would be closer to where my sympathies lie. Unless you mean because I don't agree with the US group think on Russia. In which case try: Stephen Cohen, or even Leonid Bershidsky.
I agree with Greenwald on some things, disagree with him on a lot of other things (I'm not a free speech absolutist, or a libertarian) and read maybe 5% of what he writes. I do think the way that liberal media have try to marginalize him because he didn't concur with group think on a couple of issues says something interesting about US media. Perhaps it should be possible to disagree with him without accusing him of Trump/Putin apologetics, or whatever the insult du jour currently is. It's infantile.
Dude you are so over your skis and into yourself if you really think we're interested in your reading list.
Actually this is really handy as I think I am ready to move past Frank Miller and Alan Moore.
The thing is that minor crooks are being punished by bigger crooks. It’s like the top (financially) layer of this global society is like a flock of vultures feasting on common human’s gullibility. Banks, Social media moguls and politicians sticking their heads out of movers and shaker’s pockets.
It’s like George Mombiot puts it: it’s not the adjective (neoliberal, market etc) but the noun (capitalism) that has to go as it doesn’t serve the population.
https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/10/december/why-brexit-is-capitalism-civil-war-george-monbiot
Jacques Tardi!
Joe Sacco!
Ooh! Nice, will certainly check these chaps out!
@cian ... I agree with you on the full court press to get rid of the electoral college. I think, tho, it should be put to the vote with a nationwide referendum. This would cause a possible increase in trust for the election process by getting everyone to vote again for something that publicly might be nonpartisan. For sure, the Republicans would try to trash the idea, but now there are ostensibly two Republican parties.
I also think, tho it’s unlikely, that the Senate be scrutinized. It is not a mechanism of a representative democracy. That two Senators from Utah, Alaska, or Hawaii have equal weight as states like California in determining the laws that govern 350,000,000 people is obviously flawed. What justification is there for this? Riddle me that, Batman.
Also, it’s interesting that you use the word “fight”, which was once understood as “make an effort”. Now, however, “fight” will always be scrutinized and suspect. I like “full court press”, myself. Competitive but not belligerent.
National referenda aren't how the constitution works. We are stuck with that mechanism. FWIW, in every state where there is any chance of winning people over to the abandoning the electoral college, there is also a movement to get the state to join the National Popular Vote compact. The compact so far has 75% of the votes pledged to it that it needs to become effective. The remaining states are going to be hard-earned.
It needs to be mentioned that SCOTUS could potentially interfere (see the wikipedia article) because there is some constitutional wiggle room for them to say that it violates some aspect of the constitution. It also doesn't prevent a state from leaving it.
When you think about how reasonable the case for abolishing it is (which is super reasonable to me), you must keep in mind that there are states with a vested interest (both cultural and economic) for retaining the unfairness.
If you leave it all up to the popular vote you end up with a situation like in UK where English Tories are able to dictate to the other Countries in the Union by virtue of having a larger population. The interests of Midwest farmers are likely to be totally different from Californian computer engineers
But why should midwest farmers have greater representation just because their viewpoint is different?
For those that don't know, the origin of the electoral college (and most of the goofiest parts of our governance structure) was to ensure that states with chattel slavery could not have their right to enslave people taken away by people who disapproved.
Sadly, this protection of state rights to discriminate still has a pretty profound influence on people's choices.
Why should midwestern farmer have more of a say than people in California? Just because their minority view would not get a chance to rule the country is not a reason that THEY should rule the country.
Within their state, they would still be setting up local policies. So, it isn't like losing a disproportionate voice electing the president will deny them any say in their lives. It will give their candidates incentive to be moderate.
I’ll warn everyone right now the right (radical) have been pushing, and actively working for, a constitutional convention for the past two decades. They have their list agenda and support. If we call one they have their wish list and the sane people don’t except for one or two points. The last thing I’d want to do right now or in the recent future is to walk into a trap with prepared undemocratic corporatist fascist terrorists. Trump obviously isn’t prepared - but a large part of the radical right are.
It took Stacy Abrams and the like almost 10 years to get Georgia blue. NOTHING will be a cakewalk and the fire alarm has already been broken for something MORE than a trash can fire. The whole building might go if the bullshit and sedition can’t be stopped on multiple fronts.
Still she (we will) persevered. The other choice is untenable.
PS as someone who used to admire Glen Greenwald I can now freely admit he’s a philosophical and political wad who HAD some good points. A broken clock is right twice a day.
Since this is a music forum anyone have any songs that exemplify how they feel right now?
I posted one a bit back.
In the UK we also have constituency borders that favour the right wing. Those borders get changed frequently by Tory governments to consolidate their position.
However, the method of electing the Executive power is different - if the US were to follow the UK system, whoever has the most seats in the House would choose one of their number to be President.
The UK might have the same gerrymandering problems, but the impacts are different.
Well you're into me enough to accuse me of being a Glenn Greenwald fanboi, so I wasn't far off I guess. All I really know is you disagree with me, but are unable to articulate an actual argument. But hey insults are always good I guess.
We do have similar taste in comics though it seems.
The last time US had economic inequality like it has today it also had very similar politics and extremism (gilded age). And a lot of this stuff is being funded by billionaires. So you're not wrong.
Yeah it's a good idea, though constitutionally I don't think it's possible unfortunately.
None. It's grotesque. I agree entirely.
I like organize, because it's a more accurate description of what needs to happen. Go out, meet people, plan do stuff en mass. But honestly I don't care what people call it as long as they do it. Politicians won't save us - only we can save us.
1) Why should midwestern farmers have more of say if there are fewer of them than Californian computer engineers?
2) In the UK the interests of the Scottish population are actually over represented.
3) The Tories have never won a popular vote in their life and have in fact won elections with fewer votes than the other parties.
As to your point #3, the Tories have won the popular vote there every time they have won to my knowledge - the system lends itself to the winner of the popular vote having a majority in the House of Commons.
Sorry I scrambled it. Governments have won with a minority vote in the UK, and the Tories have never got anywhere close to 50% of the vote. The differences in popular vote between the two parties are usually quite small, whereas the differences between seats can be enormous.
HA! Optimistic bastard.
Exactly this - and the only opportunity we had to rectify this (i.e. when Nick Clegg helped them form a coalition government) was thrown away along with any credibility the Liberal Democrats had.