US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3657

On April 22 2016 23:18 TMagpie wrote:
I still don't get how the person with the popular vote, the delegate vote, the super delegate vote, and who's done more than just be a source of pork spending is somehow "subverting the will of the voters" when her opponent is just an old white guy who only wins low voter turn out caucuses.

On April 22 2016 22:58 Mohdoo wrote:


But that gets rid of people's ability to feel like they're "sticking it to the man", essentially the only reason anyone registers as independent.

On April 22 2016 23:52 Simberto wrote:


Maybe the reason to register as independent is to protest a shitty two-party system? Because there does not seem to be any legitimate way to change that in the US, so one might want to at least voice ones dissatisfaction with that fact.

On April 22 2016 23:52 Simberto wrote:


Maybe the reason to register as independent is to protest a shitty two-party system? Because there does not seem to be any legitimate way to change that in the US, so one might want to at least voice ones dissatisfaction with that fact.

On April 22 2016 23:32 Djzapz wrote:

Who are you talking to? I read the last few pages and it doesn't look like this is a pertinent thing to say to anybody. Did you just want to throw a few basic disses at Sanders while not initiating a conversation with anyone?

On April 23 2016 00:38 TMagpie wrote:


The past two pages has been accusations that Hilary is suppressing voter choice to beat Bernie when the only person benefiting from voter suppression is Bernie. It's a blatant twisting of facts to attack the winning candidate.

On April 23 2016 00:36 TMagpie wrote:


Abstaining from a system is not protesting it, it is making the choice to limit your own power to change things. The real issue people have is that they can't force others to agree with them.

The owners of nearly 600,000 Volkswagen vehicles rigged to cheat on emissions tests will have the option to have their cars fixed or bought back by Volkswagen, a judge said on Thursday.

Judge Charles Breyer did not give details on how much car owners would be paid but said the deal between Volkswagen, the US government and private lawyers would include “substantial compensation”. Last month, The senior US district judge threatened a trial if Volkswagen and US officials did not reach an agreement on timing of the repairs by Thursday.

“Volkswagen is committed to earning back the trust of its customers, dealers, regulators and the American public,” the company said in a statement. “These agreements in principle are an important step on the road to making things right. As noted today in court, customers in the United States do not need to take any action at this time.”

The agreement will include a fund for corrective efforts over the excess pollution, and Volkswagen will be required to commit other money to promote green automotive technology, said Breyer, who has not yet formally signed off on the deal.

US officials and VW have until 21 June to file preliminary proposals on the settlement. Before Breyer signs off on the final settlement, those affected will have a chance to weigh in during a public comment period.

On April 22 2016 19:41 DrCooper wrote:
Well the problem is not that the parties pick their candidate themselves, which makes total sense, but the two party presidential system. If you had 5 parties to chose from in the general election the not being able to vote in the primary wouldn't be in issue because you have other options. But if you only have two parties the public should have a say who gets to be their candidate. If you had 5 parties though, that would mean loads of other problems we might experience this election.
If Bernie and Trump decide to run as independents and the votes split up something like 35% - 30% - 25% - 10% does somebody have a legitmate claim to be the U.S president if he represents only 35% of the country?

On April 23 2016 01:23 Nebuchad wrote:


What is this disagreement about specifically? Cause I hear all of Bernie's ideas are really popular in the US, so I just have to wonder.

Speaker Paul Ryan on Thursday said he does not have enough GOP support to pass a budget, something he once called the basic function of governing when he was House Budget chairman.

“You need the votes to pass a budget,” the Wisconsin Republican told reporters at a news conference when asked about the possibility of moving a fiscal blueprint. “We don’t have them right now.”

When Democrats failed to pass budgets while they were in the majority, Republicans pilloried them for failing to do their job. But now, Democrats are lobbing the same criticism back at the GOP.

The House Republican Conference is deeply divided over a deal outgoing Speaker John Boehner of Ohio struck with the White House last fall, which raised budget caps to allow for more government spending.

Conservatives hate the deal, preferring to keep in place the across-the-board cuts known as sequester, enacted into law years ago. They refuse to vote for a budget at the higher spending level. And since Ryan can't turn to Democrats for support due to policy riders often in the budget, he’s stuck.

The speaker, however, said he’s still hopeful: “I still want to pass a budget.”

On April 22 2016 22:44 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't see the problem with having to register early. When I started work, I got paid from day 1 but I didn't get my benefits until 6 months in, and my retirement has a vesting schedule so I only get part of it if I leave quickly. I have friends who got big fat signing bonuses, and if they leave before 2 years they have to give those back as well. It's a pretty low bar to jump.

If you're at the far end of the political spectrum, just register for the party that's closer to you. If you're extremely left leaning I think it's silly to register independent instead of Democrat since you're giving up a lot just to have an I next to your name to indicate your ideological purity. Just register D. You don't have to donate or vote unless you find a candidate you like.

On April 23 2016 01:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:


The US has a multi spectrum political system, with a distillation filter through a two party binary. Everyone who is left of the preconceived (and fluidly defined) center registers for the Democratic Party, and everyone who is right of that center registers for the Republican Party.

Within that party, there is a wide spectrum of political opinion's whose support and vocalization changes over time. Which is why Democrats used to be pro slavery and are now the ones focused on civil rights. It is also why the republicans turned from being the welfare focused politicians into the corporate focused politicians.

These shifts in political stances are brought about based on who you vote for in the midterm and local elections, as that forms the base of the political party. Then, as an aggregate of the party's total population, and executive representative is put forward to be the leader of the US facing off against the opposing party's representative.

Conservatives know this, and so they vote in local elections and are able to turn the party into what represents them over time. That's how we get reaganites, the christian right, tea party-ists, etc...

Liberals do not, simply don't vote in the midterms, and then get confused why the US does not represent them. Why? Because liberals don't like negotiating with people and making real changes. They'd rather just make an unreasonable statement, say it, lose their vote, lose their power, lose their rights, and then pretend to be surprised why the power they gave away is no longer with them. In short, the problem is that they can't force people to see things their way.

On April 22 2016 23:52 Simberto wrote:


Maybe the reason to register as independent is to protest a shitty two-party system? Because there does not seem to be any legitimate way to change that in the US, so one might want to at least voice ones dissatisfaction with that fact.

On April 23 2016 02:24 Nebuchad wrote:


Magpie appears to be saying that the issue with independants is that they can't force others to agree with them. I'm wondering what about. I don't think it looks like I've asked for a series of obvious statements about the US political system.

On April 23 2016 01:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:
To be clear, my post was mostly just incredulous at the implied incompetence of the official in this instance. The likelihood that this was an actual effort at voter suppression leaves me highly skeptical, given the relatively low numbers affected and that New York was already projected to be a blowout by margins far larger than the numbers missing by all the known metrics. Arguing that it was done purposefully to ensure a Clinton win beggars disbelief when it, from the evidence we have currently, was the result of one top official (purposefully or not) who fucked up the list cleaning process.

I will reiterate: the DNC and RNC have no power on the Board of Elections: that is a local government affair. All this talk about DNC voter suppression doesn't match up with the facts and is just wild anti-Hillary speculation at this point, and a need to politicize mistakes that were not political to begin with.


Yes. Elections of 1860 and 1912 are precedents.

On April 23 2016 02:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:


I was primarily talking about exactly that. People who usually register independent do so because they dislike the primary parties more so than they actually believe that their beliefs are part of the ideology of the independent party. As such, I was suggesting, that the reason they're even independent to begin with (and why independents are usually seen as being similar to people like Bernie) is because most liberals don't want to play the game of joining the Democratic party and changing it from the inside. Ie, they can't just make people believe what they believe so what's the point they'll just take their ball to play with someplace else.

On April 23 2016 02:57 Naracs_Duc wrote:


I was primarily talking about exactly that. People who usually register independent do so because they dislike the primary parties more so than they actually believe that their beliefs are part of the ideology of the independent party. As such, I was suggesting, that the reason they're even independent to begin with (and why independents are usually seen as being similar to people like Bernie) is because most liberals don't want to play the game of joining the Democratic party and changing it from the inside. Ie, they can't just make people believe what they believe so what's the point they'll just take their ball to play with someplace else.