Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, eclipse said:

The homeless issue is huge here, and part of the issue is that other states (both governments and private citizens) will give their homeless a one-way ticket to our state.  Then it's our problem to deal with.  I don't think we're the only state that deals with this issue, but those of us on the receiving end of this nonsense are outnumbered by everyone else.  But attempting to regulate it via "you need to have a valid home address to fly to Hawaii" will also complicate things, since we have a lot of tourists, and they will most likely be staying in a hotel.

Are you sure you're not a penal colony? Because this sounds like a terribly dated concept. Australia's British colonization much?

Why can't you ship the homeless back? Why no attempt to ship them back and then get a lawsuit going? -How could the SC definitively side against you? What legal argument is there that a state can ship one way, but then the recipient state not ship the other? 

This sounds like garbage/plastic waste problem, although sadly it's human lives. Nobody wants the stuff, so they just send it elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, Interdimensional Observer said:

Are you sure you're not a penal colony? Because this sounds like a terribly dated concept. Australia's British colonization much?

Why can't you ship the homeless back? Why no attempt to ship them back and then get a lawsuit going? -How could the SC definitively side against you? What legal argument is there that a state can ship one way, but then the recipient state not ship the other? 

This sounds like garbage/plastic waste problem, although sadly it's human lives. Nobody wants the stuff, so they just send it elsewhere.

Like they'd be honest about where they came from?  Hawaii has beautiful weather, so no sleeping outside in the snow!

As for "why", it's because it makes the other states look good on metrics like "taking care of the homeless".  When you put it that way, it's eerily similar to the trash problem, but people shouldn't be treated like trash.  I'd rather get to the roots of it, and address things like addiction/mental illness/poverty.  But good luck with that in the current political climate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

27 minutes ago, eclipse said:

The homeless issue is huge here, and part of the issue is that other states (both governments and private citizens) will give their homeless a one-way ticket to our state.  Then it's our problem to deal with.  I don't think we're the only state that deals with this issue, but those of us on the receiving end of this nonsense are outnumbered by everyone else.  But attempting to regulate it via "you need to have a valid home address to fly to Hawaii" will also complicate things, since we have a lot of tourists, and they will most likely be staying in a hotel.

Next is the massive AirBnB issue, which means less housing for the locals.  I don't know how it would be addressed, short of banning BnBs entirely.

There's also the issue on Mauna Kea regarding protesters and the Thirty Mile Telescope, but it looks like the weather might solve it instead.  I'm not sure if anyone would care if we didn't have representatives from our state.

Don't get me started on the disaster that is the rail project in Honolulu.

The idea of federalism (i.e. a founding era doctrine which still holds up pretty well) was supposed to be that the national government handles national issues. (i.e. federal programs, protection of national resource and wildlife areas, war, immigration and naturalization, protection of civil rights arising under The Constitution of the United States of America) 

State and local governments handle state and local issues. (i.e. "the hotel industry has a premium on marketable real estate and is driving up the price of local housing; there should be some kind of zoning law that designates X parcels of land as reserved for residential use only, and bans commercial development")  

And that the federal government should only step in and use national resources to do the state's job if its something the state really messed up and/or can't handle.

I would think that this provides a workable paradigm for addressing the issues you've raised, without the need for undemocratic skewing of elected representation at the national level.

And that if those issues are going unaddressed: thats an issue that needs to be resolved by releasing the wrath of State voters on your governor and your state lawmakers in Honolulu.

Not in Congress. 
 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I'm not going to fully agree with my reps on every single subject matter, nor would I expect to.

That doesn't really answer the question or clarify the point I hoped you would so let me rephrase it. Do you believe that McConnell should have the power to block legislation as he has done?

49 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Popular vote means that my state gets screwed purely because a single big city in the US already outnumbers the entire state's population by a factor of 7.  Thing is, it's Everyone Else that's doing shit like throwing their homeless population at my state (California most likely has a similar issue).  If our state had things our way, that would be stupidly illegal on the federal level.  But it's not, and will likely never be.

You say this but you don't really explain why that is. A city getting voting power proportional to its population does not equate to smaller states losing their voice. You yourself have acknowledged that under the current voting system, your vote doesn't matter for the presidential election.

How does the country electing Trump, a buffoon who's made it clear he hasn't read the constitution and has no interest in states that didn't vote for him give your state a voice? How is that the case with any president the unpopular party puts forward? The other side would probably do less against your state or if they did, they would get a ton of flak for it. With the current unpopular party (Republicans), being an ass to states that didn't vote for their president is a feature.

I dunno, I haven't see a good response to this and the ones I have seen boil down to "I want power, I'm not interested in fairness because you states with the bigger cities are assholes who will be unfair to us anyway". To which I respond with: Then why the fuck are we still subsidizing smaller states as opposed to just adding it to our public institutions?

Plus it sounds like these problems are more of a state level deal than federal.

49 minutes ago, eclipse said:

It also ties into Hawaii's history of being forcibly turned into a US territory - while it has its benefits (like me being here to type this instead of not being born at all), it also shows that a smaller entity would be happily screwed by the government should it NOT have a voice.  We were also insanely lucky that the majority of the Japanese population wasn't subject to the internment camps (something tells me that if it had been left up to the federal government, I'd have very different stories to tell about that era).  I'd like to think that our state learned from history.

Yes but that history is as a result of a bunch of rich racist assholes who thought they could run the place better and later annexed the country with the help of a corrupt Ambassador when they figured it would be better for trade. If it sounds familiar to some it's because it's the same exact shit people want to do away with by getting corporate money out of politics. If Hawaii wants to become a sovereign nation again, it'd have better chances of being heard on that front with a government that's more representative of the people living in it rather than the current mess we have that's giving so much power to the fuckers appealing to racists assholes as well as the rich.

I don't believe it was your intent but to suggest that (assuming the country is truly representative of its people via the suggested adjustments) the US of today would be the same assholes of the US from back then is very similar to right's attempts at framing the Democrats as being the racists today using examples of the past when they were the racists.

Hell, we're literally living at a time where one side is simply suggesting that we treat others how they'd like to be treated while the conservative base is threatening people over political correct that they don't like. The voice of the disenfranchised is heard more today than it was decades ago.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, eclipse said:

But attempting to regulate it via "you need to have a valid home address to fly to Hawaii" will also complicate things, since we have a lot of tourists, and they will most likely be staying in a hotel.

Is that a proposed solution? That'd be extremely shortsighted, yeesh. 

Hawaii's just too small to handle a large population, your environment just can't sustain it. Can only do so much when you're using a few tiny islands with a sole-source aquifer. 

33 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Next is the massive AirBnB issue, which means less housing for the locals.  I don't know how it would be addressed, short of banning BnBs entirely.

AirBnB is causing problems globally, sadly. Are developers there doing that thing where they buy up housing and basically run them as unofficial hotels? Without some very precise legislation, I think the only other solution might be a major overhaul of public housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

 

The idea of federalism (i.e. a founding era doctrine which still holds up pretty well) was supposed to be that the national government handles national issues. (i.e. federal programs, protection of national resource and wildlife areas, war, immigration and naturalization, protection of civil rights arising under The Constitution of the United States of America) 

State and local governments handle state and local issues. (i.e. "the hotel industry has a premium on marketable real estate and is driving up the price of local housing; there should be some kind of zoning law that designates X parcels of land as reserved for residential use only, and bans commercial development")  

And that the federal government should only step in and use national resources to do the state's job if its something the state really messed up and/or can't handle.

I would think that this provides a workable paradigm for addressing the issues you've raised, without the need for undemocratic skewing of elected representation at the national level.

And that if those issues are going unaddressed: thats an issue that needs to be resolved by releasing the wrath of State voters on your governor and your state lawmakers in Honolulu.

Not in Congress. 
 

These are multi-state issues (how businesses/governments conduct themselves across state borders), so I think the federal government would have to step in for the homeless/AirBnB issues should they truly get out of hand.  The rail was mentioned because we got federal funding for it.  I think the TMT did, too.

12 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

That doesn't really answer the question or clarify the point I hoped you would so let me rephrase it. Do you believe that McConnell should have the power to block legislation as he has done?

McConnell is literally one guy.  If it's a single point of failure, that's a bigger issue that needs to be addressed.  If it's "McConnell and everyone that follows him", that would be a better discussion point.

12 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

You say this but you don't really explain why that is. A city getting voting power proportional to its population does not equate to smaller states losing their voice. You yourself have acknowledged that under the current voting system, your vote doesn't matter for the presidential election.

How does the country electing Trump, a buffoon who's made it clear he hasn't read the constitution and has no interest in states that didn't vote for him give your state a voice? How is that the case with any president the unpopular party puts forward? The other side would probably do less against your state or if they did, they would get a ton of flak for it. With the current unpopular party (Republicans), being an ass to states that didn't vote for their president is a feature.

I dunno, I haven't see a good response to this and the ones I have seen boil down to "I want power, I'm not interested in fairness because you states with the bigger cities are assholes who will be unfair to us anyway". To which I respond with: Then why the fuck are we still subsidizing smaller states as opposed to just adding it to our public institutions?
 

I'm against religion in government despite being Christian because Christianity happens to be the majority NOW (and I'd  be pissed if I woke up one day and the US was under Sharia law).  Likewise, Hawaii's policies currently align with the bigger population centers, but I don't know if it'll be that way in the future.  I like having a recourse should things go the wrong way.

Hawaii is in a unique position.  We're in the middle of the ocean, which means we make a good military base.  Assimilating us into another state means that the other state would have to manage a population center that's really far away.  While completely dropping funding for states that voted Trump is a nice rabbit hole, the realistic question becomes "alright, how badly is this going to shaft our economy?"  I believe the auto bailouts happened because of this.

12 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Yes but that history is as a result of a bunch of rich racist assholes who thought they could run the place better and later annexed the country with the help of a corrupt Ambassador when they figured it would be better for trade. If it sounds familiar to some it's because it's the same exact shit people want to do away with by getting corporate money out of politics. If Hawaii wants to become a sovereign nation again, it'd have better chances of being heard on that front with a government that's more representative of the people living in it rather than the current mess we have that's giving so much power to the fuckers appealing to racists assholes as well as the rich.

I don't believe it was your intent but to suggest that (assuming the country is truly representative of its people via the suggested adjustments) the US of today would be the same assholes of the US from back then is very similar to right's attempts at framing the Democrats as being the racists today using examples of the past when they were the racists.

Hell, we're literally living at a time where one side is simply suggesting that we treat others how they'd like to be treated while the conservative base is threatening people over political correct that they don't like. The voice of the disenfranchised is heard more today than it was decades ago.

They also had help from McKinley.  The previous president was a good friend of the queen, which is why it didn't happen sooner.

Yes, their voices are heard, but what is being done about it?  Names aside, we have one side that will happily sit on others for their sake, which is why I want Hawaii to have a slightly disproportionately large voice in the government.  It's just unfortunate that said side happens to have a lot of land and less people overall.

1 minute ago, Johann said:

Is that a proposed solution? That'd be extremely shortsighted, yeesh. 

Hawaii's just too small to handle a large population, your environment just can't sustain it. Can only do so much when you're using a few tiny islands with a sole-source aquifer.

I'm honestly not sure how to deal with the issue.  First off, the people flying TO Hawaii on one-way tickets may have a valid reason for doing so (like, it's cheaper to buy two one-way tickets than a round trip).  Then there's the matter of people being truthful about their length of stay and all.  Not easy in the slightest.

The bigger population issue is that a lot of the population is on a relatively small island.  Each island has its own problems, whether it be the winds making life hell for those on Hawaii (Big Island), while Kauai's prices are even more insane than Oahu's.  I think if everyone moved to the larger islands and developed them, it wouldn't be quite as bad, but I'm positive those islands wouldn't want that.  Plus, when the main power plant goes out on Oahu, it knocks out power to the entire island.  At least the radio hosts were nice enough not to laugh at the guy who thought that redundant power systems were the way to go.

5 minutes ago, Johann said:

AirBnB is causing problems globally, sadly. Are developers there doing that thing where they buy up housing and basically run them as unofficial hotels? Without some very precise legislation, I think the only other solution might be a major overhaul of public housing.

Yes, and worse.  We recently had an issue with "monster houses", which were basically oversized dwellings that could've doubled as unofficial apartments.

I think it's in bad taste to cheer on the hotels in this situation, but I am.  At least there's regulations regarding what hotels can and can't do (whether or not they follow them is another matter).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

 

The idea of federalism (i.e. a founding era doctrine which still holds up pretty well) was supposed to be that the national government handles national issues. (i.e. federal programs, protection of national resource and wildlife areas, war, immigration and naturalization, protection of civil rights arising under The Constitution of the United States of America) 

State and local governments handle state and local issues. (i.e. "the hotel industry has a premium on marketable real estate and is driving up the price of local housing; there should be some kind of zoning law that designates X parcels of land as reserved for residential use only, and bans commercial development")  

And that the federal government should only step in and use national resources to do the state's job if its something the state really messed up and/or can't handle.

I would think that this provides a workable paradigm for addressing the issues you've raised, without the need for undemocratic skewing of elected representation at the national level.

And that if those issues are going unaddressed: thats an issue that needs to be resolved by releasing the wrath of State voters on your governor and your state lawmakers in Honolulu.

Not in Congress. 
 

This right here is my point of view.  Federal government isn't the only government, we pay local and state taxes so those we elect into power on that level can handle the issues and best serve our needs.  I'd even be fine with them keeping Congress representation as is, for those multi state federal propositions and all that but for presidential elections it is stupid.  It makes individual votes worthless in many states, and only super valuable in swing states who decide the election.  We are a country of people, not city blocks.  All New Yorkers or Alabamians or whatever don't agree with each other/want the same things.  Each person is an individual with their own opinion and it should count same as any other. Besides not having that fat sack of crap where cardiac arrest couldn't happen fast enough in the white house, it would mean the president elected would truly represent the people.  He was voted in by the majority of people. 

On people voting Republicans I understand Monty Burns voting that way, it serves his needs, lines the pockets of the wealthy, tax cuts for big businesses, trying to do away with the minimum wage or at least keep it from rising and all that.  Yeah it is selfish and all that but fine.  However there are many that are Cletus the slack jawed yokel, too dumb and inbred to know they are just suckers that the wealthy and RNC ladders probably are laughing about behind their backs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

McConnell is literally one guy.  If it's a single point of failure, that's a bigger issue that needs to be addressed.  If it's "McConnell and everyone that follows him", that would be a better discussion point.

One guy representing one state and blocking the voices of the other 49 states from debating and voting on policy in the Senate. But it pretty much is the Republican party as whole, check out this graph on the use of the Filibuster by the minority party. Notice how the newest speak has always been set by the Republicans? Notice that massive spike during the Obama years? Republicans did not take kindly to a black man being President.

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

I'm against religion in government despite being Christian because Christianity happens to be the majority NOW (and I'd  be pissed if I woke up one day and the US was under Sharia law).  Likewise, Hawaii's policies currently align with the bigger population centers, but I don't know if it'll be that way in the future.  I like having a recourse should things go the wrong way.

First of all, Sharia law has absolutely no chance of becoming a thing in the US with all the fear-mongering the right-wing has done on about Muslims, the closest thing we've had to that is Jeff Sessions and Sarah Huckabee Sanders justifying the concentration camps to hold people from Central America by using the bible as well as anything they reference the bible for when they're trying to legislate crap allowing assholes to discriminate for arbitrary reasons.

Secondly, the majority voting in a President does not equate to the majority suddenly being able to pass EVERYTHING that they want. That's why the system has the Separation of powers but that's currently being abused by the Republicans.

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Hawaii is in a unique position.  We're in the middle of the ocean, which means we make a good military base.  Assimilating us into another state means that the other state would have to manage a population center that's really far away.  While completely dropping funding for states that voted Trump is a nice rabbit hole, the realistic question becomes "alright, how badly is this going to shaft our economy?"  I believe the auto bailouts happened because of this.

I'm sorry, I don't follow what's going on here at all. What does discussion of the popular vote and distribution of seats in the Senate and House have to do with assimilation of Hawaii into another state? What is the point you're trying to make here?

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

They also had help from McKinley.  The previous president was a good friend of the queen, which is why it didn't happen sooner.

Doesn't really change what's been said unless you know of a candidate on the popular side that's going to be such a danger to Hawaii. If such a candidate were to exist in the Democratic primary and details of his/her plans to harm Hawaii came to light during the election, that candidate will easily lose the primary.

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

Yes, their voices are heard, but what is being done about it?  Names aside, we have one side that will happily sit on others for their sake, which is why I want Hawaii to have a slightly disproportionately large voice in the government.  It's just unfortunate that said side happens to have a lot of land and less people overall.

Action is being taken, action that's typically stifled by... you guessed it... REPUBLICANS! With no real arguments whatsoever! You should look at that HR 1 Bill I linked earlier, it addresses a lot of issues related to voting and as you can see, it passed in the house despite 100% of the Republicans voting against it. There was also a bill introduced to regulate marijuana and it's one of the issues some of the Democratic candidates are bringing to table because at the end of the day, criminalizing marijuana was something that was kept during the Nixon era to make it easier for him lock up blacks. Today, there's no real reason to keep weed illegal and all they respond with is "It's a gateway drug" when evidence debunks any argument they have and suggests it's less problematic than Alcohol and Tobacco which are both legal. Then there's M4A, college affordability and debt, all those issues are being put on the spotlight and legislation is being introduced to deal with it all while Republicans, instead of suggesting alternatives or talking about how to address the issue, will just tell you it's all natural and nothing needs to be done while they try to figure out how to pass another tax cut for the rich. Sure, you can be opposed to all those proposals and the debate is welcomed but that's just it: There's nothing substantial from the Republicans, they just lie, distract and block the vote.

I know it probably seems like I'm a partisan tribalist, specially when I say that "Republicans should be voted out to extinction or endangerment"  but I say that because it's literally one of the simplest solutions to come up with when it comes to the issue of our Congress being ineffective. All evidence points to those motherfuckers being the biggest perpetrators of the "Pay to Legislate" garbage the entire country is sick and tired of and it is infuriating to see that such a simple solution has yet to be enacted due to the right-wing media's brainwashing. Fortunately, the disaster that is Trump is making a GOP wipeout more of a reality with each day they keep defending Trump and failing.

Then once the Republicans are voted out you'll probably end up with another set of 2 factions in Congress: Progressive and Conservatives functioning better than what we have today as Republicans are more accurately described as Regressives. It isn't hyperbole, many of those fucks haven't even read the Mueller Report before saying Trump is innocent and based on their recent defenses of Trump and that Ukraine call, you'd have to question whether they've read the constitution or have abysmal reading comprehension.

It's not like I'm a fan of Democrats either, they're just the lesser of 2 evils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2019 at 9:19 PM, Shoblongoo said:

Undemocratic compared to what though.

Undemocratic compared to mainland China? (yeah--thats pretty dumb)

Undemocratic compared to--Taiwan???

Try telling someone from Taipei that Tsai Ing-Wen should have won the 2012 presidential election even though Ma-Ying Jeaou got 51.6% of the vote, because the mountain jungle provinces where almost no one lives but you occasionally run into a village of rice farmers all voted for Tsai.

And 1 vote There = 3 Votes in a Coastal City; Ma-Ying Jeaou only won the Coastal Cities   

They'll probably tell you that sounds very undemocratic. 

So... What? Are you just strawmanning here? You're bringing up Taiwan when it's obviously about the US, and are trying to lure me into saying something stupid about a country where the problem is much more pronounced than in the US.

Because, in the US, with the Electoral College, any one vote has never been worth 10% more than any other vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

with the Electoral College, any one vote has never been worth 10% more than any other vote.

3-for-5 in producing electoral outcomes that match the popular vote in the past 20 years my dude

60% is a failing grade where I come from 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

3-for-5 in producing electoral outcomes that match the popular vote in the past 20 years my dude

60% is a failing grade where I come from 

I'm pretty sure you mean 2-for-5, and you should know that Bush 1 was decided by Bush v Gore, not the Electoral College.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

 Bush 1 was decided by Bush v Gore not because of the Electoral College.

Fixed that for you. 

On 11/5/2019 at 5:54 PM, eclipse said:

These are multi-state issues (how businesses/governments conduct themselves across state borders), so I think the federal government would have to step in for the homeless/AirBnB issues should they truly get out of hand.  The rail was mentioned because we got federal funding for it.  I think the TMT did, too.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps The Senate as originally structured is still necessary because the States themselves require national representation; not merely general voting populations. 

If so then the problem is not that the Senate exists as structured. But thats its powers do not match its job-description.

And by that I mean if the Senate's purpose as an institution is to represent the States and not the will of the general electorate. Then the Senate should be a lawmaking body of limited jurisdiction, which votes only on matters pertaining to conflicts-of-interests between the states.

While general lawmaking power should reside exclusively in the People's House. 

And if the House passes legislation supported by a majority of the general electorate that does not implicate a direct conflict-of-interest between the States, the Senate should have no power to vote it down because voting majorities in the most scarcely populated states oppose it. 

Perhaps that is a more sensible reform.

Perhaps it is what the Senate does rather than how Senators are elected that should be reexamined.

I don't know...I'm just spit-balling ideas here...

You raise some good points though and have definitely given me some things to think about. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Fixed that for you.

You should read up on the decision. If you have and think it's good law, lol.

If you need me to spell out the punchline, Bush won because without the recount, the Florida went to him

Edited by Excellen Browning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what point you think you're trying to make. But electoral votes rather than popular votes deciding presidential elections is the only reason the Florida recount was even being litigated in the first place.

Since in a national election decided by popular vote, the disputed numbers in Florida wouldn't have mattered (Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes) 

Bush would not have become president in 2000 but-for the electoral college and the fact that the Florida results were litigated before the Supreme Court is immaterial to that point.  

If there was no electoral college and we used the popular vote in 2000 Al Gore would have been president. 

Bush won because of the electoral college.

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my and what did are darling illegitimate president Mr. George W Bush do?  Worse recession since the Great depression, and plunged us into a meaningless war that took thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.  Allowed Bin Laden and his cronies to stick around and wreck havoc much much longer than otherwise.  

Fuck the Electoral college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Lewyn said:

Oh my and what did are darling illegitimate president Mr. George W Bush do?  Worse recession since the Great depression, and plunged us into a meaningless war that took thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.  Allowed Bin Laden and his cronies to stick around and wreck havoc much much longer than otherwise.  

Fuck the Electoral college.

I still rather have Bush though over Trump. Despite ideological differences, I do not mind working out compromises with him and I do not doubt his loyalty. Trump is straight up repulsive and he is a national security hazard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, XRay said:

I still rather have Bush though over Trump. Despite ideological differences, I do not mind working out compromises with him and I do not doubt his loyalty. Trump is straight up repulsive and he is a national security hazard.

Agreed.  Bush did what he thought would be good for the country, and seems like he is a really decent human being.  Rumsfeld and Cheney seem to have manipulated him into doing a lot of stuff as well.  

Trump on the otherhand is the first president in my lifetime that is essentially doing everything he can to profit himself and doesn't care at all about the country or its people.  It isn't about the classic conservative vs progressive idealogies as to what would be good for the country, it is all about what is good for him and feeding his massive ego.  The 2020 election is the most important in many decades, the orange turd has corroded America to the breaking point already another 4 years and it will be beyond repair.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lewyn said:

Agreed.  Bush did what he thought would be good for the country, and seems like he is a really decent human being.  Rumsfeld and Cheney seem to have manipulated him into doing a lot of stuff as well.  

Trump on the otherhand is the first president in my lifetime that is essentially doing everything he can to profit himself and doesn't care at all about the country or its people.  It isn't about the classic conservative vs progressive idealogies as to what would be good for the country, it is all about what is good for him and feeding his massive ego.  The 2020 election is the most important in many decades, the orange turd has corroded America to the breaking point already another 4 years and it will be beyond repair.  

Also agreed. Bush made some bad decisions, but he wasn't a bad person.

He was a simple man who was humble enough to know he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and who in his humility made every effort to surround himself with people who knew more than he did, and trust in their counsel when faced with decisions where he thought they might be more knowledgeable than he was.

The worst thing you can say about him is that he trusted the wrong people.

But there are no redeeming qualities about Donald Trump.

If Frankenstein stitched together a monster made entirely out of human personality flaws and moral failings, it would  be a Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2019 at 4:52 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Fixed that for you. 

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps The Senate as originally structured is still necessary because the States themselves require national representation; not merely general voting populations. 

If so then the problem is not that the Senate exists as structured. But thats its powers do not match its job-description.

And by that I mean if the Senate's purpose as an institution is to represent the States and not the will of the general electorate. Then the Senate should be a lawmaking body of limited jurisdiction, which votes only on matters pertaining to conflicts-of-interests between the states.

While general lawmaking power should reside exclusively in the People's House. 

And if the House passes legislation supported by a majority of the general electorate that does not implicate a direct conflict-of-interest between the States, the Senate should have no power to vote it down because voting majorities in the most scarcely populated states oppose it. 

Perhaps that is a more sensible reform.

Perhaps it is what the Senate does rather than how Senators are elected that should be reexamined.

I don't know...I'm just spit-balling ideas here...

You raise some good points though and have definitely given me some things to think about. 

Huh, that might work.  Or it might not.  If there's one thing I have confidence in, it's my complete and utter lack of knowledge of the delicacies of our current political system!

On 11/7/2019 at 5:03 PM, Lewyn said:

Oh my and what did are darling illegitimate president Mr. George W Bush do?  Worse recession since the Great depression, and plunged us into a meaningless war that took thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.  Allowed Bin Laden and his cronies to stick around and wreck havoc much much longer than otherwise.  

Fuck the Electoral college.

I have two words for you: Patriot Act.

9 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

But there are no redeeming qualities about Donald Trump.

He spawned a subreddit that's as amusing as it is infuriating - Trump criticizes Trump.  Context is in the comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, eclipse said:

Huh, that might work.  Or it might not.  If there's one thing I have confidence in, it's my complete and utter lack of knowledge of the delicacies of our current political system!

Anything might work, anything might not. On paper, yes it is easier to deduce some ideas are worse than others, but not all of them.

Institutions, regardless of their framework, require humans willing to enforce the framework in its intended way. But even then good intentions can have unexpected consequences that turn out being bad.

@Shoblongoo Idea sounds okay on paper. And it sounds like something of a downgrading of the Senate, which might not be the worst idea if moving closer to unicameralism makes legislation easier to pass. I am left asking then though of the treaty ratification, and judge and cabinet approval powers of the Senate - how do these affect the States if the Senate is only a body sort out inter-State interests? Do those approval powers pass to the House?

And unicameralism wouldn't remedy all problems of American politics. There would still be the executive-legislative divide not found in some other countries, the removal of which would further ease legislative passing. And yet, the former gold standard of essentially unicameral executive-legislative governments, the Once-Great-and-Almighty United-For-Now Kingdom of Britain, has been painfully stuck in Brexit for the past three years. To speak not of lesser unicameral governments in countries of lesser renown.

And, if the Senate were reduced to an inter-States conflict solver, would the Republican attempt to repeal Obamacare a few years ago have been thwarted? We can't know, because who knows if the pressure on the House being therefore greater and its importance more significant in this altered system, would have lead to certain Representatives acting differently, or the politicians in the House would have been altogether different because the Senate was no longer so highly regarded. However, with thing as they were, the House did vote to repeal the ACA, and the Senate alone stopped it. A strong bicameralism means McConnell can DoA anything the House puts out, were the situation reversed with a GOP House and a Senate of Dems, the 'pubs could be stopped. The checks of bicameralism and executive-legislative divide are banes when your party is in ascendance, a safeguard when they're in the decline. 

 

So best solution to anything? IDK.😅 But I'm left with the classic overused James Madison quote- "If men [and women!] were angels, no government would be necessary". But because men aren't angels, what government is necessary?

 

 

Although we all have to admit, reforming the Senate would require a Constitutional amendment richer in detail than any prior written. This isn't giving/protecting a right, it's reformulating Article 1 in heavily specific detail. I very much doubt that'd happen.

And as semi-related aside, now that Virginia is entirely blue, they might become the 38th State to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, allowing it to become officially part of the Constitution. However, this would require that it be legally recognized that this decades-belated approval be valid, considering all the other votes on the matter happened back in the 70s, and Congress set a deadline for ratification by like no later than the 1980s. Congresses can't bind their future selves to anything, so the opinion goes, but until Virginia tries to ratify the ERA, who knows how things would end up?

Edited by Interdimensional Observer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2019 at 1:27 PM, Shoblongoo said:

Also agreed. Bush made some bad decisions, but he wasn't a bad person.

He was a simple man who was humble enough to know he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and who in his humility made every effort to surround himself with people who knew more than he did, and trust in their counsel when faced with decisions where he thought they might be more knowledgeable than he was.

The worst thing you can say about him is that he trusted the wrong people.

But there are no redeeming qualities about Donald Trump.

If Frankenstein stitched together a monster made entirely out of human personality flaws and moral failings, it would  be a Trump. 

Yes, you can say Trump is perfect in his imperfections.  Even the worst of people seem to have some good to them, but Trump is like a super villain in a childrens cartoon.  Except usually those are actually smart, Trump is a damn moron.  The country falling to an evil genius, okay...I can respect that even if it is regrettable.  Falling to a no brain evil idiot?  Yeah that just makes all of us look pathetic.  

Trump also is a great example of better to be Rich and guilty than poor and innocent.  The justice system is a joke, he will be able to delay many lawsuits for years, decades.  

Maybe next time Trump is golfing and putting our tax dollars right into his pocket, a big bird will drop a doo doo mid flight, it will go into his eye cause he happens to look up at the same time, it will cause a severe infection and he will die.  

On 11/8/2019 at 11:22 PM, eclipse said:

 

I have two words for you: Patriot Act.

 

I agree the Patriot Act was a good thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Lewyn said:

Yes, you can say Trump is perfect in his imperfections.  Even the worst of people seem to have some good to them, but Trump is like a super villain in a childrens cartoon.  Except usually those are actually smart, Trump is a damn moron.  The country falling to an evil genius, okay...I can respect that even if it is regrettable.  Falling to a no brain evil idiot?  Yeah that just makes all of us look pathetic.  

That's a big thing when it comes to Trump and something that firmly sets him apart from other populist. I might never agree and think others foolish for thinking it but I can at least understand why someone would admire Putin, I can see why someone thinks Le Pen has what it takes to be a leader, I can see things that would make people respect Wilders and I can easily imagine why someone would fall for Farage's charm. 

But what's the excuse for supporting Trump? What has he ever said or done that could convince someone he wasn't an openly corrupt businessman and a complete dullard to boot? There are reason to fall for other populists but I cannot think of a single thing that could convince people that supporting Trump is a good idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

But what's the excuse for supporting Trump? What has he ever said or done that could convince someone he wasn't an openly corrupt businessman and a complete dullard to boot? There are reason to fall for other populists but I cannot think of a single thing that could convince people that supporting Trump is a good idea. 

The only thing I can think of is some shitty logic governed by the notion that blocking and undoing legislation is equal to a win. Otherwise there's just the anti-immigration crowd salivating and getting scammed (by people other than Trump too) with the promise of a wall.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...