General US Politics

[Johann]

17 minutes ago, Karimlan said:

The way some of their cohorts like Gaetz walked in to the closed-door meetings, smartphones in hand, "ignorant as to how the process works" definitely fits the bill.

Gaetz knows the rules, he's just playing it up for the true believers. His plan was to get arrested so there would be footage of him and his goons being "oppressed".

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Republicans bitching about the impeachment is just continued gaslighting and setting up to play victims like how the Evangelicals are currently doing. Conservatives that haven't lost their minds already know that the Democrats are actually playing by rules established by Republicans themselves. They've complained about transparency as another way to rile up their base and it's total BS because they were vocally against public hearings but want them now so that fools like Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz can play their little Trump defense act in the public eye. At least one of these clowns sticks to the old tale of "fuck public hearings".

They're admitting they have no hope attacking the substance so instead they're just attacking the process. In a sane world, they're basically done.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Excellen Browning]

2 hours ago, Karimlan said:

The way some of their cohorts like Gaetz walked in to the closed-door meetings, smartphones in hand, "ignorant as to how the process works" definitely fits the bill.

I'm also pretty sure that the SCIF break in was a felony (or several), which their congressional immunity doesn't protect them from, and that they should be prosecuted for it.

[Tediz64]

I ponder the fate of people not politically active. I remember someone once told me that less than half of the population is engaged in politics when it isn't time for elections, and even then only a small % of the country's population votes. I haven't done the homework on the active-ness of our citizens, but it really does seem like a tiny population controls the the fate of over 300 million in our country. I wouldn't mind so much if we made mistakes and voted the wrong people in, cause we could easily recover from that after a few years and if we picked out better people next election cycle. But we got slim pickings. I hope my candidates make it for the next debate. They made it in for the Nov19 debate but they aren't polling so we'll despite having the funds to keep going on the campaign trail.

Any predictions on who is gonna get knocked out by the Dec debate 

[XRay]

2 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Any predictions on who is gonna get knocked out by the Dec debate 

I honestly do not see anyone other than Biden, Bernie, and Warren having any chance. As a moderate, I am sticking with Biden since he seems the most politically stable and well connected. I do not mind Bernie or Warren, but I do not think they can reach across the aisle effectively.

[Excellen Browning]

I prefer Warren or Sanders, but I'll also vote Biden.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Excellen Browning

[Tediz64]

1 hour ago, XRay said:

I honestly do not see anyone other than Biden, Bernie, and Warren having any chance. As a moderate, I am sticking with Biden since he seems the most politically stable and well connected. I do not mind Bernie or Warren, but I do not think they can reach across the aisle effectively.

That's interesting. I've been hearing Buttigieg and Yang have been making a comeback and also were polling way unexpectedly higher than what was predicted. They seem to also demonstrate a level of sensible and reasonable points and also, like Biden, seem as if they'd compromise and work together and make decisions for the greater good. I love that fact that Buttigieg is ex military plus has some background in making moderate choices. He even discusses things trying to engage everyone fairly. As for Yang's , his ideas might need a little tweaking but his approach is pretty great. At the very least, he is focusing on something everyone cares about. Our economy and infrastructure. I'm sad Tulsi Gabbard isn't probably gonna make it. A soldier in office as Commander in Chief would have been such a huge reward, I'd be proud to salute her. Plus it's be our first female president which is great and way better than Warren as an option. 

I've even heard that if it was Trump versus either Buttigieg/Gabbard, those two Democrats could nab hundreds of thousands of votes from Republicans/conservatives in several districts that are red to the core. Let me see if I can't find that source so I can link it

Edited November 1, 2019 by Tediz64

[Etrurian emperor]

5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I ponder the fate of people not politically active.

Over 2000  years ago a wise man said

''The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men''

 

 

[Excellen Browning]

7 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I ponder the fate of people not politically active. I remember someone once told me that less than half of the population is engaged in politics when it isn't time for elections, and even then only a small % of the country's population votes. I haven't done the homework on the active-ness of our citizens, but it really does seem like a tiny population controls the the fate of over 300 million in our country. I wouldn't mind so much if we made mistakes and voted the wrong people in, cause we could easily recover from that after a few years and if we picked out better people next election cycle. 

Are you actually making the argument that the US is ruled by a small shadowy cabal, or just unaware of things like voter turnout? Because I guessed that ~55% of the eligible population voted in the 2016 presidential election, and that this was roughly 40-45% of the total population, just off the cuff. And upon looking it up, this is actually pretty accurate. 

[XRay]

6 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

That's interesting. I've been hearing Buttigieg and Yang have been making a comeback and also were polling way unexpectedly higher than what was predicted. They seem to also demonstrate a level of sensible and reasonable points and also, like Biden, seem as if they'd compromise and work together and make decisions for the greater good. I love that fact that Buttigieg is ex military plus has some background in making moderate choices. He even discusses things trying to engage everyone fairly. As for Yang's , his ideas might need a little tweaking but his approach is pretty great. At the very least, he is focusing on something everyone cares about. Our economy and infrastructure. I'm sad Tulsi Gabbard isn't probably gonna make it. A soldier in office as Commander in Chief would have been such a huge reward, I'd be proud to salute her. Plus it's be our first female president which is great and way better than Warren as an option. 

I've even heard that if it was Trump versus either Buttigieg/Gabbard, those two Democrats could nab hundreds of thousands of votes from Republicans/conservatives in several districts that are red to the core. Let me see if I can't find that source so I can link it

Realistically, I do not see them make it. They do not have the name recognition that Biden, Bernie, and Warren has. If they keep running for presidential elections in the future, then they will probably stand a better chance.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

6 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

That's interesting. I've been hearing Buttigieg and Yang have been making a comeback and also were polling way unexpectedly higher than what was predicted. They seem to also demonstrate a level of sensible and reasonable points and also, like Biden, seem as if they'd compromise and work together and make decisions for the greater good. I love that fact that Buttigieg is ex military plus has some background in making moderate choices. He even discusses things trying to engage everyone fairly. As for Yang's , his ideas might need a little tweaking but his approach is pretty great. At the very least, he is focusing on something everyone cares about. Our economy and infrastructure. I'm sad Tulsi Gabbard isn't probably gonna make it. A soldier in office as Commander in Chief would have been such a huge reward, I'd be proud to salute her. Plus it's be our first female president which is great and way better than Warren as an option. 

I've even heard that if it was Trump versus either Buttigieg/Gabbard, those two Democrats could nab hundreds of thousands of votes from Republicans/conservatives in several districts that are red to the core. Let me see if I can't find that source so I can link it

Biden following up on the promise he made to his rich donors that "Nothing will change" does nothing for the greater good, unless you believe the greater good to be the pockets of the rich.

Working with the Republican agenda that's become  more evident during the Trump administration would only serve 2 groups of people: The rich and the white supremacist cucks that will also be robbed "but at least I can call black people the N word again".

Biden is trash and I'm glad he keeps going on the debates to prove how much of a Hillary 2.0 he truly is. Biden's saving grace is that Trump is worse than trash but like Pelosi, Biden is blind to the simple fact that people want change and that it's part of the reason people voted for Trump in 2016 when they had previously voted for Obama.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Zapp Branniglenn]

It's a little dumb that presidential elections are decided by just a fraction of the eligible voter population. And perhaps our country should consider the particulars of a compulsory voting system as other nations are trying out. But we are not a government that weighs votes equally against each other. With the electoral college, the win of 2016 was decided by about 100,000 votes spread across three swing states if I remember my checking and rechecking of electoral maps years ago. But you see I'm cherry picking statistics. By focusing on that 100,000, I am disregarding the weight of the rest, which is the core issue of the system. Votes are not appreciated between states equally when it comes to electoral power, and the winner-take-all system ensures candidates campaign in swing states almost exclusively. Even if we removed all we know about demographics in the country, some states would still matter more, proportionally. A Wyoming voter has about three times the electoral power as my Californian vote has. Add back to the equation the fact that my state is solidly blue, if I did want to go against the grain I'd feel like my vote doesn't matter - which is likely a common reason why people neglect to vote in the first place. Yet another issue the popular vote gets to correct. This country should be more open to opening this Pandora's Box 

With a popular vote there'd be no need to reframe the amount of votes that elected the president. If you get 2 million more than your opponent, that's how much you win by. People who didn't and still don't understand the electoral college will say "ugh, ONLY two million? RECOUNT!". People would decry that the president is decided by "coastal elite sheeple" and that some votes should ultimately matter more than others to be more "fair". But if the purpose of the electoral college is to avoid "populists" as the founding fathers intended, they have failed spectacularly. The electoral college made more sense in an era when there was no such thing as "demographics". Only land owning whites got a say, and ultimately only the electors represented those votes. And is California really a worse "elite" than Wyoming? We feed and finance much of the country and we'd be providing a large proportion of republican votes  because now nothing would be excluded by the winner-take-all system. Presidential candidates could campaign wherever they think they can swing the most votes and more voices would get heard as a result.

I have other issues with Election Day - for instance it is only one day and not a week and most states don't allow absentee ballots like mine does. But one issue at a time.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

2 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

This country should be more open to opening this Pandora's Box 

According to polling, the country is more willing to abolish the Electoral College. You have to get people willing to pass it first and that's through the Congressional and Senate elections that get less attention than the Presidency. The President can help by campaigning on that issue and publicly pushing for it while in office. I would expect it from Warren or Sanders but not from Biden until that reaches like 85% support (and even then, he may not support it).

7 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

I have other issues with Election Day - for instance it is only one day and not a week and most states don't allow absentee ballots like mine does.

Election day as a holiday is an even easier issue. It's already passed under a bill in the house much like many others. The obstacle in this case is the turtle, Mitch McConnell. In mid-late 2018 there were 569 house-passed bills stuck in the Senate. His polling has been pretty bad as of late due to him sticking with Trump so if he cares to get re-elected, he might end up throwing Trump under the boss when the Senate trial happens.

If people want anything to get done, the outcome of 2020 should be that the Democrats take over the Senate and the presidency while maintaining the House. The latter being the only certainty.

All in all the data points towards the people of the country agreeing with progressive policies. It's just that our politics are a fucking joke thanks to right-wing media.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

According to polling, the country is more willing to abolish the Electoral College. You have to get people willing to pass it first and that's through the Congressional and Senate elections that get less attention than the Presidency. The President can help by campaigning on that issue and publicly pushing for it while in office. I would expect it from Warren or Sanders but not from Biden until that reaches like 85% support (and even then, he may not support it).

Well I'm sure there's more interest in the wake of the 2016 election. But with every passing year that interest is going to wane. People are going to forget how the system works as more elections go by where the winner happens to also get more a couple mil more votes. And then the sixth time the winner of the popular vote loses a presidential election in 2048 we'll be back in this void of "hmm...maybe...?" My first election I participated in was 2012, I thought the electoral college was the biggest big deal that nobody was talking about. I was a high school senior, allow me some slack. It hadn't been long since the 2000 election mess in Florida where folks uncomfortably asked "are we really hedging the results of a nationwide election on a couple districts...?" When asked about it, political scientists and politicians would say "mmm...well, it'd take a constitutional amendment, so it's unlikely". Glossing over the fact that we've amended the electoral college twice already. Sure, granting DC electoral votes in the 23rd is not as big a deal as outright abolition, but amendments are just part of legislative procedure. 

I'm happy to hear there's more interest in this year 2019, but I still wouldn't place blame squarely on Congress. Political parties are (rightfully) terrified at the prospects of a popular vote because the current system is easy to understand (even if high school seniors struggle with it) and easy to manipulate via redistricting every ten years. Hence why I call it "Pandora's Box". They won't take the steps forward unless the national support for a popular vote becomes overwhelming. The most slam dunk policy for your campaign. And the only way I see that happening is if the popular vote winner loses more than a couple times in a generation. That's statistically unlikely.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

1 hour ago, Glennstavos said:

Well I'm sure there's more interest in the wake of the 2016 election. But with every passing year that interest is going to wane. People are going to forget how the system works as more elections go by where the winner happens to also get more a couple mil more votes. And then the sixth time the winner of the popular vote loses a presidential election in 2048 we'll be back in this void of "hmm...maybe...?" My first election I participated in was 2012, I thought the electoral college was the biggest big deal that nobody was talking about. I was a high school senior, allow me some slack. It hadn't been long since the 2000 election mess in Florida where folks uncomfortably asked "are we really hedging the results of a nationwide election on a couple districts...?" When asked about it, political scientists and politicians would say "mmm...well, it'd take a constitutional amendment, so it's unlikely". Glossing over the fact that we've amended the electoral college twice already. Sure, granting DC electoral votes in the 23rd is not as big a deal as outright abolition, but amendments are just part of legislative procedure. 

I'm happy to hear there's more interest in this year 2019, but I still wouldn't place blame squarely on Congress. Political parties are (rightfully) terrified at the prospects of a popular vote because the current system is easy to understand (even if high school seniors struggle with it) and easy to manipulate via redistricting every ten years. Hence why I call it "Pandora's Box". They won't take the steps forward unless the national support for a popular vote becomes overwhelming. The most slam dunk policy for your campaign. And the only way I see that happening is if the popular vote winner loses more than a couple times in a generation. That's statistically unlikely.

It's definitely Congress. Obama and Clinton wanted to do away with the Electoral College and make it work with the popular vote instead but as long as Republicans held control of the Senate, that simply wasn't going to happen and one of them basically admitted to it when he said "the last thing we were interested in was giving President Obama legislative successes." Efforts to curb and eliminate Gerrymandering have one primary attacker: Conservatives (of which there may be some Democrats) and Republicans.

And yes, you're absolutely right that the interest to get rid of that shit will wane and we'll probably repeat the cycle of not discussing the issue and then discussing it when an incompetent buffoon wins the presidency again via the electoral college. This is why Democrats maintaining the house, taking the Senate and having a worthwhile Democratic president willing to Abolish the Electoral College are a must as a result of 2020.

This is not even taking into account the worse Pandora's box we've got lying around: the possibility that a presidential candidate can win both the Popular AND Electoral vote but still not get the Presidency because the Electors gave the vote to Trump even though their state voted for the Democrat. The country would be very fucking pissed off to see that by some miracle, Texas voters actually went for the Democrat but the Elector gave ALL of those 34 Electoral votes to Trump.

"Republicans should become an endangered species or extinct" is something I've said a few times it is not hyperbole if you wish to see change in the country and fairness in our elections. They are the obstacle for the latter and because of Trump's win in 2016, we've given Mitch McConnell the ability to shape the courts and you better believe he's using his chance to do what he wants with that while he still can.

Edited November 1, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Lewyn]

Republicans don't want to do away with the electoral college cause it always favors them, and without it they would be extinct.  Good for the country, but they don't care about the country just their party. 4 presidential elections where the elected president won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, and all 4 were Republican.  

Republicans are just fear tactics, and insults, and their dumb as a doorknob base eats it up.  Anyone researching most of their BS claims would quickly see what hypocrites or plain wrong they are.  

On the presidential election, I want Andrew Yang but he hasn't a chance. Biden is boring and old, but he really is the best shot.  Warren has the Pocohantes nickname and more importantly is a woman.  The Republicans and Trump will love ripping into that and a lot of people will never vote for a woman regardless.  Bernie is great and has a passionate following, but he is Jewish which is a knock (anti semites won't vote for him) and it is easy for Republicans to label him a socialist and ooh aah how terrifying that would be!  

[eclipse]

4 hours ago, Lewyn said:

Republicans don't want to do away with the electoral college cause it always favors them, and without it they would be extinct.  Good for the country, but they don't care about the country just their party. 4 presidential elections where the elected president won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, and all 4 were Republican. 

Small states also have a vested interest in the electoral college.

[Excellen Browning]

10 hours ago, Lewyn said:

Republicans don't want to do away with the electoral college cause it always favors them, and without it they would be extinct.  Good for the country, but they don't care about the country just their party. 4 presidential elections where the elected president won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, and all 4 were Republican.  

And two of those were in the 1800s, not long after the US civil war, when *checks notes* the democrats were pro slavery, and the republicans were against and generally the progressives.

Oh, and the third, G.W. Bush's first election, was decided by the supreme court, not the electoral college.

[Shoblongoo]

 

16 hours ago, Lewyn said:

Republicans don't want to do away with the electoral college cause it always favors them, and without it they would be extinct.  Good for the country, but they don't care about the country just their party. 

Also apply everything you just said to the Senate, because the electoral college is only half the problem. And if anything, focusing just on the electoral college understates it. 

Republicans got fewer votes then Democrats in 2016 and won the White House.
Republicans got fewer votes than Democrats in 2018 and held the Senate.

Democrats control one-half of 1 of the 3 branches of government despite being the people's choice now in two consecutive national elections.  


(I'm actually inclined to say the Senate is the more severe side of the problem here) 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[De Geso]

23 hours ago, Lewyn said:

Republicans don't want to do away with the electoral college cause it always favors them, and without it they would be extinct.  Good for the country, but they don't care about the country just their party. 4 presidential elections where the elected president won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, and all 4 were Republican.  

Republicans are just fear tactics, and insults, and their dumb as a doorknob base eats it up.  Anyone researching most of their BS claims would quickly see what hypocrites or plain wrong they are.  

On the presidential election, I want Andrew Yang but he hasn't a chance. Biden is boring and old, but he really is the best shot.  Warren has the Pocohantes nickname and more importantly is a woman.  The Republicans and Trump will love ripping into that and a lot of people will never vote for a woman regardless.  Bernie is great and has a passionate following, but he is Jewish which is a knock (anti semites won't vote for him) and it is easy for Republicans to label him a socialist and ooh aah how terrifying that would be!  

Without the electoral college, the country's president is decided entirely by New York and California. If you're from a big city in one of those large states I can see why you would favor abolishing the electoral college, but if not I think you are unwittingly leaving the fate of the nation in the hands of the increasingly whimsical populations of those states. It might be scary that the system in place is functional, and I understand that your side losing has made you anxious for radical change, but you have to be willing to look at the larger picture. Many Americans will simply not have a voice in this representative republic in the scenario in which you abolish the electoral college.

Before you make assumptive non-arguments directed at me: I am not a Republican.

Edited November 4, 2019 by De Geso

[Etrurian emperor]

7 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Without the electoral college, the country's president is decided entirely by New York and California. If you're from a big city in one of those large states I can see why you would favor abolishing the electoral college, but if not I think you are unwittingly leaving the fate of the nation in the hands of the increasingly whimsical populations of those states. It might be scary that the system in place is functional, and I understand that your side losing has made you anxious for radical change, but you have to be willing to look at the larger picture. Many Americans will simply not have a voice in this representative republic in the scenario in which you abolish the electoral college.

Before you make assumptive non-arguments directed at me: I am not a Republican.

But doesn't the electoral collage have the opposite problem? That a bunch of rural states are the ones who primarily decide who gets to be president. That's hardly any better and they were certainly very um...whimsical last election. Isn't some alternative system possible that doesn't dismiss the popular vote entirely while still decreasing the dominance of New York and California? 

[Shoblongoo]

12 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Without the electoral college, the country's president is decided entirely by New York and California. 

You mean--the places where people actually live??? 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[Slumber]

2 minutes ago, De Geso said:

Without the electoral college, the country's president is decided entirely by New York and California. If you're from a big city in one of those large states I can see why you would favor abolishing the electoral college, but if not I think you are unwittingly leaving the fate of the nation in the hands of the increasingly whimsical populations of those states. It might be scary that the system in place is functional, and I understand that your side losing has made you anxious for radical change, but you have to be willing to look at the larger picture. Many Americans will simply not have a voice in this representative republic in the scenario in which you abolish the electoral college.

Before you make assumptive non-arguments directed at me: I am not a Republican.

Is the country's elections being decided by huge states like New York, California and Texas(Why do people always leave out Texas when they make this comment? It has more electoral power than New York does. Florida also has the same amount of electoral votes as New York.) REALLY any worse than the country being decided by Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio and Iowa? As it stands, if you're not in a swing state, your vote pretty much already doesn't matter. I live in a state that's been solidly blue since before Reagan. Trump managed actually managed to really electrify the republican base in my state, a blue state that Hillary ignored like many in the midwest, a blue state that went for Bernie over her, and Trump still lost my state. And due to how the Electoral College is handled, it means he lost ALL of those votes that he actually managed to sway here. The Electoral College doesn't magically mean the minority voters get a bigger voice, it just gives certain states way more power than they probably deserve.

And yes, it sucks that smaller states wouldn't have as big of a voice, but that's what state legislature is for. The White House is supposed to be the representative of the people of the US. I don't see why "More people in the country want this person to be president, so now they're president" is somehow worse than "Less people wanted this person to be president, so now they're the president".

Yes, state legislature doesn't always accurately represent their state, but letting the smaller population choose who gets to be president now means that the PotUS no longer represents the majority of Americans. Case in point: Trump dismantling so many environmental regulations, cutting funding to people working towards researching alternative energy, and deciding to fucking pander to coal miners, an industry that has been dying due to lack of demand. Guess what happened? The demand for coal didn't suddenly increase. We just got Trump cutting growing industry that more Americans are aware of and support.

[Shoblongoo]

The smaller states would have the voice they should have relative to the number of people who live there. 

The only way you can even really say that 'sucks' is if you think they deserve something more to begin with 

[Slumber]

10 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

The smaller states would have the voice they should have relative to the number of people who live there. 

The only way you can even really say that 'sucks' is if you think they deserve something more to begin with 

I think it's more the idea that smaller states have more specific niches in the country than bigger states. Usually agriculture, which is a pretty delicate issue, so them being able to speak up probably helps them.

The main issue is when "helping them" also means "hurting everyone else", which tends to happen a lot when republicans are in power. Republicans also tend to hurt these people, too, so idk.