US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6304

On November 24 2016 03:36 farvacola wrote:

This site seems full of proof to the contrary

On an unrelated note, let the looting begin.




Trump nominates two prominent GOP women: DeVos as education secretary, Haley as U.N. ambassador

On November 24 2016 05:16 Mohdoo wrote:


Don't argue with posters in a political thread?

On November 24 2016 06:41 Velr wrote:
Don't talk about pre ww2.
Pre ww1 is were it's at if you wan't to go back that far. If your talking international politics at least.
WW2 was just such a textbook followup to WW1, it's actually staggering if you look back at it now.

Or in general a forgotten "lower/middle class" bearing up against the rulers? Well... Every revoltuion ever, but thats another way diffrent topic from WW2...

What is it you actually want to talk about?

On November 24 2016 07:01 Velr wrote:
Well, europe right after WW2 had obviously pretty low levels of income inquelaity (aside from the guys that got the nice deals right after the war), because everyone was at 0.

But i think you want to talk about bipartisanship? So, what would help there is having more than 2 parties... because if there are like 6 parties, "marriages" depending on the topic, will happen, and they change from topic to topic. Its how democracy is supposed to work.

sorry, i'm drunk, and this is probably kind of a rant, but i'm kinda worried:
In Switzerland (with like 4 major parties and 3 more smaller parties and a system whiteut real coalitions, "bad alliances" happen all the time between parties. Often the far left and the far right take some law to the grave because its horrible to both of them (for way diffrent reasons). This obviously brings on a whole diffrent level of problems, but, all in all, i think its better than the way it is in the US atm... Because the way it is in the US atm (not because of trump) worries me and probably most people that actually like democracy and would like to have a balanced goverment.

Even in tiny switzerland we got these problems, and somehow, i am here in this tread, where some of you guys tell me, that "its just bound to be a 2 party system in the us".. I just don't buy it and i think its a major problem.

On November 24 2016 07:18 Kickstart wrote:
The "its just bound to be a 2 party system" line is true. For a quick summary: say you have 6 parties and the one who takes a majority of votes wins. Assume the first election something like this happens:
Party 1: 20%
Party 2: 21%
Party 3: 10%
Party 4: 14%:
Party 5: 26%
Party 6: 9%

The people who voted for parties 3 and 6 immediately realize they are in a minority. Now, lets say that Party 6 was more similar to party 5 than it was to any other party, and thus in the next election most of the people who voted for them move to party 5, and that people in party 3 had more in common with party 2 and voted for that. Now you have 4 parties with the same problem as initially, this just carries on until there are only 2 parties trying to reach 51%.

On November 24 2016 07:01 Velr wrote:
Well, europe right after WW2 had obviously pretty low levels of income inquelaity (aside from the guys that got the nice deals right after the war), because everyone was at 0.

But i think you want to talk about bipartisanship? So, what would help there is having more than 2 parties... because if there are like 6 parties, "marriages" depending on the topic, will happen, and they change from topic to topic. Its how democracy is supposed to work.

sorry, i'm drunk, and this is probably kind of a rant, but i'm kinda worried:
In Switzerland (with like 4 major parties and 3 more smaller parties and a system whiteut real coalitions, "bad alliances" happen all the time between parties. Often the far left and the far right take some law to the grave because its horrible to both of them (for way diffrent reasons). This obviously brings on a whole diffrent level of problems, but, all in all, i think its better than the way it is in the US atm... Because the way it is in the US atm (not because of trump) worries me and probably most people that actually like democracy and would like to have a balanced goverment.

Even in tiny switzerland we got these problems, and somehow, i am here in this tread, where some of you guys tell me, that "its just bound to be a 2 party system in the us".. I just don't buy it and i think its a major problem.

Jill Stein, the Green party’s presidential candidate, is prepared to request recounts of the election result in several key battleground states, her campaign said on Wednesday.

Stein launched an online fundraising page seeking donations toward a $2m fund she said was needed to request reviews of the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Stein said she was acting due to “compelling evidence of voting anomalies” and that data analysis had indicated “significant discrepancies in vote totals”.

Her move came amid calls for recounts or audits of the election results by groups of academics and activists concerned that foreign hackers may have interfered with election systems.

Donald Trump won unexpected and narrow victories against Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and may yet win Michigan, where a result has not yet been declared.

The loose coalition of academics and activists, which is urging Hillary Clinton’s campaign to join its fight, is preparing to deliver a report detailing its concerns to congressional committee chairs and federal authorities, according to two people involved.

“I’m interested in verifying the vote,” said Dr Barbara Simons, an adviser to the US election assistance commission and expert on electronic voting. “We need to have post-election ballot audits.” Simons is understood to have contributed analysis to the effort but declined to characterise the precise nature of her involvement.

A second group of analysts, led by the National Voting Rights Institute founder John Bonifaz and Professor Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan’s center for computer security and society, is also taking part in the push for a review.

Donald J. Trump has said climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese to get the United States to suppress its manufacturing sector. That prompted a public rebuttal last week from a Chinese official attending a climate summit meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump appeared to back away from the strict climate-denier viewpoint embraced by many Republicans in an interview with The New York Times, saying that there was “some connectivity” between human activity and climate change. He also said he wanted to keep an “open mind” about whether to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, the main global climate change accord.

Mr. Trump’s opacity means it is unclear whether he will actually support policies to limit the effects of climate change after being sworn in as president in January. But officials from China, which has surpassed the United States as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gas, have said they will move forward on climate policies without the Americans, if it comes to that.

On Tuesday, Michael R. Bloomberg, the media tycoon and former mayor of New York City, said that American cities would continue to enact climate policies no matter what Mr. Trump and the federal government decided to do.

Mr. Bloomberg made his remarks in Washington at a talk hosted by the China General Chamber of Commerce. They were adapted for an op-ed article published Tuesday by Bloomberg View under the headline, “Washington Won’t Have Last Word on Climate Change.”

Mr. Bloomberg, a longtime advocate for action on climate change, praised Xie Zhenhua, China’s climate envoy, for saying China remained committed to tackling the issue. “That’s a responsible thing to do for the Chinese people and the world,” he said.

Mr. Bloomberg added that if Mr. Trump decided to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, then he would urge the mayors of 128 cities in the United States who see the need to fight climate change to join the agreement.

Following is a central passage from Mr. Bloomberg’s op-ed article:

“I can’t tell you what Donald Trump’s administration will do — and in all fairness, they will need time to figure it out themselves. What’s said on the campaign trail is one thing; actually carrying out a specific policy is another. I hope they’ll recognize the importance of the issue. But I am confident that no matter what happens in Washington, no matter what regulations the next administration adopts or rescinds, no matter what laws the next Congress may pass, we will meet the pledges that the U.S. made in Paris.

“The reason is simple: Cities, businesses and citizens will continue reducing emissions, because they have concluded — just as China has — that doing so is in their own self-interest.

On November 24 2016 08:22 farvacola wrote:
Pretty low, though interest seems to be building at a steady pace.