US Politics Thread

[mancity2012_eamo]

Oh well. Perhaps some day we can aspire to lose the biggest empire the world has known and after that vote ourselves into permanent economic exile.

Who’d be that daft?

 

[jim tolmies perm]

It's a joke. They have appointed judges, every case mentions if they are a rep or dem appointed judge. That shouldnt happen in the first place.
They have district attorneys, a role we dont have here thankfully, that are political positions.
They have jury selection, which is something we dont have here thankfully because that is inherently political.
They have a 'Supreme' Court to rule on matters that are appealed, and that is inherently political because those judges are appointed by either reps or dems.
And finally, they have a pardon system, where if all else fails the president judges and makes sure its all ok no matter what.
Its a farce there. Nothing will ever happen to Donald Trump.
And the ultimate irony will be, it is constitutional and lawful.

Constitution no longer fit for purpose. I hear people talk about how perfect its separation of powers are but now we've entered a phase where there clearly are none. It's turned in on itself completely

 

[buckshot]

It's time for a constitutional convention. We're way beyond the circumstances of 1789. Freedom of speech has gotten out of hand to the point that people are literally dying because of the lies of right-wing media. The 2nd amendment is a completely ridiculous concept that has been misinterpreted for decades. The Electoral College has been outdated since the invention of the telegraph.

Probably the worst is the idea of having a senate that gives the same voting power to a state with 300,000 people as a state with 40,000,000. Just think, these 20 states can pretty much stop every piece of legislation from being passes because you need 60 votes to get things through the senate instead of a simple majority. These 20 backwards states get to decide how the other 30 have to live. They have roughly 40% of the population but their SCOTUS enacts laws that make it illegal for Black people to vote or for poor people to have access to healthcare or allow women the right to choose. They also roll back any and all environmental protection legislation because "God will protect us."

Mississippi
Idaho
Wyoming
Kentucky
Alabama
Arkansas
Texas
West Virginia
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Alaska
Florida
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
South Dakota
North Dakota
Utah

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

It's time for a constitutional convention. We're way beyond the circumstances of 1789. Freedom of speech has gotten out of hand to the point that people are literally dying because of the lies of right-wing media. The 2nd amendment is a completely ridiculous concept that has been misinterpreted for decades. The Electoral College has been outdated since the invention of the telegraph.

Probably the worst is the idea of having a senate that gives the same voting power to a state with 300,000 people as a state with 40,000,000. Just think, these 20 states can pretty much stop every piece of legislation from being passes because you need 60 votes to get things through the senate instead of a simple majority. These 20 backwards states get to decide how the other 30 have to live. They have roughly 40% of the population but their SCOTUS enacts laws that make it illegal for Black people to vote or for poor people to have access to healthcare or allow women the right to choose. They also roll back any and all environmental protection legislation because "God will protect us."

Mississippi
Idaho
Wyoming
Kentucky
Alabama
Arkansas
Texas
West Virginia
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Alaska
Florida
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
South Dakota
North Dakota
Utah

I’m not actually sure the Electoral College is outdated. By that I mean I’m really not sure — I think there are good arguments both for and against it. I agree on 2A though. Problem is that it’s a Pandora’s box issue, practically speaking, now. I do think these problems begin to improve if the GOP loses over and over and in increasing numbers as red states turn blue via migration and in-migration. Gerrymandering however is a huge issue — it’s not the Senate that’s the problem — it’s the proportional House where red states have more red reps than they should population-wise due to gerrymandering. The court battles now in Alabama where legislators are effectively ignoring the SC who ruled against them — that’s a major battle issue. A few of the red states you refer to may creep blue over time whereas few blue states are ever going back (this realization is a key driver for why the GOP has veered so hard into cuckoo land — to protect what they’ve got — like cornered rats . . . .)

 

[buckshot]

I’m not actually sure the Electoral College is outdated. By that I mean I’m really not sure — I think there are good arguments both for and against it. I agree on 2A though. Problem is that it’s a Pandora’s box issue, practically speaking, now. I do think these problems begin to improve if the GOP loses over and over and in increasing numbers as red states turn blue via migration and in-migration. Gerrymandering however is a huge issue — it’s not the Senate that’s the problem — it’s the proportional House where red states have more red reps than they should population-wise due to gerrymandering. The court battles now in Alabama where legislators are effectively ignoring the SC who ruled against them — that’s a major battle issue. A few of the red states you refer to may creep blue over time whereas few blue states are ever going back (this realization is a key driver for why the GOP has veered so hard into cuckoo land — to protect what they’ve got — like cornered rats . . . .)

I can't come up with one reason for the Electoral College. It basically cancels out minority votes in non-swing states so it lowers voter turnout. Think about it, if you're a Democrat in Idaho why even show up? Or a republican in Hawaii? I know the idea is that it gives more power to smaller states but in reality the only states that get any attention at all are swing states and every election cycle there are fewer and fewer. Right now we have PA, WI, MI, NV, GA, AZ and MN. That's seven states where it matters to vote, it's ridiculous.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I can't come up with one reason for the Electoral College. It basically cancels out minority votes in non-swing states so it lowers voter turnout. Think about it, if you're a Democrat in Idaho why even show up? Or a republican in Hawaii? I know the idea is that it gives more power to smaller states but in reality the only states that get any attention at all are swing states and every election cycle there are fewer and fewer. Right now we have PA, WI, MI, NV, GA, AZ and MN. That's seven states where it matters to vote, it's ridiculous.

But you are looking at this in a moment in time. The EC for practical purposes today protects against the will of the urban from overrunning the will of the rural. Now as an urbanite who thinks the GOP is nuts if not evil, I pragmatically am fine with that . . . but, as a person who spends a lot of time in rural America with rural folks, they aren't all lunatics and they do make a lot of good points about how urban USA runs roughshod cost-load-wise over rural USA.

As I've pointed out over and over, CA/OR/WA/CO all used to be red, and in my lifetime; the south used to be filled with blue. Some of the states you mentioned as swing didn't used to be, at all. As America has urbaniz(s)ed, yes, the states with larger metros gain more relative power, and blue power at that, because their EC count goes up. And ony the Presidency is determined via EC -- nothing else is -- so there are plenty of reasons to vote. Right now it is absolute paranoia about the EC that has turned the GOP the direction it has -- they fear if just one of two red states go blue (like TX or NC, like VA did), and stay blue for a time, they'll lose the Presidency forever.

Anyhow I see both pros and cons and I would be fine if the EC was done away with but (a) I don't think it will be and (b) I guess I just don't see this as a key problem, certainly not compared to gerrymandering.

 

[buckshot]

But you are looking at this in a moment in time. The EC for practical purposes today protects against the will of the urban from overrunning the will of the rural. Now as an urbanite who thinks the GOP is nuts if not evil, I pragmatically am fine with that . . . but, as a person who spends a lot of time in rural America with rural folks, they aren't all lunatics and they do make a lot of good points about how urban USA runs roughshod cost-load-wise over rural USA.

As I've pointed out over and over, CA/OR/WA/CO all used to be red, and in my lifetime; the south used to be filled with blue. Some of the states you mentioned as swing didn't used to be, at all. As America has urbaniz(s)ed, yes, the states with larger metros gain more relative power, and blue power at that, because their EC count goes up. And ony the Presidency is determined via EC -- nothing else is -- so there are plenty of reasons to vote. Right now it is absolute paranoia about the EC that has turned the GOP the direction it has -- they fear if just one of two red states go blue (like TX or NC, like VA did), and stay blue for a time, they'll lose the Presidency forever.

Anyhow I see both pros and cons and I would be fine if the EC was done away with but (a) I don't think it will be and (b) I guess I just don't see this as a key problem, certainly not compared to gerrymandering.

The other problem is that they're not distributed fairly, N Dakota gets one vote for every 258,000 people while California gets one for every 713,000. It's just stupid.

Also, urbanites are every bit as American as people in the sticks. I'm sorry but the times they are a changin'

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

It's all fucked over there isn't it? Loads of 'end of empire' parallels with ancient Greece/Rome and the last days of British empire. Overstretching militarily abroad while domestic politics turns to shit.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

But you are looking at this in a moment in time. The EC for practical purposes today protects against the will of the urban from overrunning the will of the rural. Now as an urbanite who thinks the GOP is nuts if not evil, I pragmatically am fine with that . . . but, as a person who spends a lot of time in rural America with rural folks, they aren't all lunatics and they do make a lot of good points about how urban USA runs roughshod cost-load-wise over rural USA.

As I've pointed out over and over, CA/OR/WA/CO all used to be red, and in my lifetime; the south used to be filled with blue. Some of the states you mentioned as swing didn't used to be, at all. As America has urbaniz(s)ed, yes, the states with larger metros gain more relative power, and blue power at that, because their EC count goes up. And ony the Presidency is determined via EC -- nothing else is -- so there are plenty of reasons to vote. Right now it is absolute paranoia about the EC that has turned the GOP the direction it has -- they fear if just one of two red states go blue (like TX or NC, like VA did), and stay blue for a time, they'll lose the Presidency forever.

Anyhow I see both pros and cons and I would be fine if the EC was done away with but (a) I don't think it will be and (b) I guess I just don't see this as a key problem, certainly not compared to gerrymandering.

The two biggest problems I see with US politics (and UK politics for that matter) are political lobbying, and outside interests for elected members.

The next biggest problem is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the ONLY reason that knuckle dragging pervert Jim Jordan has a seat in the House of Representatives.

 

[bluethrunthru]