|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore.
I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing every problem being overshadowed by the constant screams of "Russia!". It's the same thing over and over. People seem to think it is acceptable to focus on something that has absolutely a negligible effect on western (or American, in this case) society at large. Even complaining when people express their opinions that they think there's much bigger issues than some insignificant country with the GPD of Italy that has goals which don't necessarily align with the goals of the society that we live in, but is constantly getting in the headlines because media companies know that people eat this shit up as the concept of "the foreign devil" is great clickbait. I don't know how I can help you understand. Russia is a problem that exists in the world, but it's not worth the attention that its receiving in the grander scheme of things. The media's consistent highlighting of this problem over others and driving the public conversation/narrative away from the things that affect people's every daily lives is ruining my mood.
|
The Trump/Russia story is the most important story of Government Corruption in all of American history. You don't get to lecture about the dangers of Corruption if you won't talk about Trump/Russia.
EDIT: I am talking about real corruption here too. Money laundering being run out of Trump Tower, anonymous LLC buying of Trump properties by huge amounts of Russians, Kushners schemes to get Russian banks to bail out 666 avenue, softening language on Ukraine while aware of the Russian government's campaign to help Trump, talking sanctions relief during meetings to get dirt on Clinton. That last one, I mean that is actual Quid Pro Quo. If Trump promised to weaken the Magnitsky act, dirt on Clinton was going to be on the table.
|
On July 13 2017 06:47 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore. Not a savior, just trying to remind people they are focusing on something that will only end with disappointment instead of things we might actually be able to do something about (and are actually causing massive suffering and death). Well let me remind you that you can bring awareness to one issue, without decrying any and all other issues and attacking the people who give that issue credence.
Allow me to try to be clear about this. What Trump and his campaign did was bad, it was more sloppy than substantively different than what we've known happens and his administration is worse than the administration that would typically use foreign assistance in gaining political power, but the story isn't that it happened, the story is that we're going to have all this theater and nothing is going to come of it.
That's the story, that the idea that our government is capable of stopping someone like Trump is a political myth, we've developed a system designed to insulate him from such worries and no one cares about that part. Everyone would rather speculate about meetings and other dumb stuff.
On July 13 2017 06:51 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing every problem being overshadowed by the constant screams of "Russia!". It's the same thing over and over. People seem to think it is acceptable to focus on something that has absolutely a negligible effect on western (or American, in this case) society at large. Even complaining when people express their opinions that they think there's much bigger issues than some insignificant country with the GPD of Italy that has goals which don't necessarily align with the goals of the society that we live in, but is constantly getting in the headlines because media companies know that people eat this shit up as the concept of "the foreign devil" is great clickbait. I don't know how I can help you understand. Russia is a problem that exists in the world, but it's not worth the attention that its receiving in the grander scheme of things. The media's consistent highlighting of this problem over others and driving the public conversation/narrative away from the things that affect people's every daily lives is ruining my mood.
This post shows me I'm not speaking Ayapaneco and people are gaslighting.
|
The US justice system is not different though. It's not like stuff that'd be very illegal in other countries only appeared yesterday (civil forfeiture, as an example). Nothing will change regardless how much we talk about it (and outlets with comically bigger influence talked about it), same thing with Trump - so i don't see a base for you blasting others based on their priorities in regards to discussions in an internet forum.
|
On July 13 2017 06:48 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:44 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:42 RealityIsKing wrote:On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore. People's time and effort are finite, it is important to prioritize. Yes it is. It is also important to recognize that your priorities will not necessarily be the same as your neighbor, or someone you have a discussion with, and to respect that. So what are YOUR top concerns for the country?
I don't believe it's particularly relevant, and I'm still developing those as I go, but I don't think it's wrong to be alarmed when my President and his administration actively undermined the democratic process, and tried at every turn to cover it up. I also believe very strongly in healthcare and criminal justice reform, so that the peace of mind attached to healthcare isn't something people have to fight for, and so brown people can drive down the street without fear of being pulled over and shot because they weren't white. I believe big business and banks need to be properly regulated, because their interests directly clash with those of their customers, and I have no interest in taking part in another recession because bankers just didn't have enough money. I also believe in effective gun control, because evidence only points to it being effective as a way of minimizing casualties of criminal activity.
But that's just off the top of my head, and from recent events.
|
On July 13 2017 06:34 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
This thread is just absolute trash lately.
I was going to respond to people saying they were "volunteers", but obviously people have no god damn clue what's going on and are just going to ignorantly and snidely get their lol's.
It's really sad. Or you could snidely ignore the article posted about the class action lawsuit bringing that issue through the court system. Honest question here, in your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government done in this case? Okay, I feel like I need to explain why the rocketing of the prison population was a bipartisan effort, and why Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton (pretty prominent Democrats) embraced prison labor even in their own home (Gov Mansion) Bill had the power to stop it and didn't, Hillary didn't even think it something worth thinking about. Instead she pontificated on what intellectual shortcomings made these people work for practically nothing for her just for a chance to be outside the prison walls for however long they could (or volunteers as some may call them) That's symbolic of the Democratic party when it comes to prison labor (modern American slavery). I mean I could go and show you how countless prisoners are in prison on bullshit charges (usually a parole/probation violation like smoking pot to deal with how incredibly messed up our country is to people who have paid their debt to society), or how every year people who were sentenced to die by our system are exonerated by pro bono lawyers who are ashamed of a system that can convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. Or how our prisons are in such deplorable conditions it's often cruel and unusual just to have to serve time (so little rehabilitation it's pathetic),or that people without family have no money in prison. That many people report it being easier for them to find drugs inside than out (although more expensive inside), because our "guards" are often just state sanctioned thugs who see their job not as protecting inmates, but punishing them. I mean it's a long and sordid list of the problems with the American Prison Industrial Complex, the idea that some lawsuit shows it's being addressed is absolutely moronic. And I raise the question again: In your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government have done in this case? Because if you want to prove that you understand political nuance, this is where you would do it. Because Prison systems, law enforcement, criminal law, it's all a very complicated system spanning multiple government organizations, multiple government bodies, and multiple laws that are both state and Federal. And this is true in basically every nation in the world that splits federal and state/provincial/territorial governments. If this goes through the court system, is deemed to violate laws, and the prisoners win, then this shows what is being done is illegal (within civil law). So, from there, how would a Federal Democrat super majority in all three Federal branches get the Texas police, court and prison system to change their criminal laws, convict less people, arrest less people, and have less people kept in prison? How would they ensure that the laws that are in place are not violated by privately run prisons so that lawsuits are not required to fix the issues? And no, those are not rhetorical questions, and no, I'm not expecting you to have a fully detailed legal essay for any of these. But if you feel like participating in political discussions, it would be nice to have more thought from you that extends past "things are broken and Democrats didn't fix it". Who would you hold accountable if not the people you can vote for that write the laws, assign people to enforce regulations, etc?
Absolutely hold the elected officials accountable. Hold the police and courts accountable. Hold the private prison owners accountable But I'm not asking "who?", I'm asking "what?"
Because in a governing system that runs through rule of law, and not Divine Right or dictatorial whim, problems have to be fixed through written law. And because of constitutional jurisdiction restricting the powers of each government body, there are also limits to what a Federal government can do to effect the States, and vice versa (barring constitutional amendment, which would be a valid, if optimistic, answer as well).
But if someone (GH in this case) has no idea what can be done, how it should be done, or if anything he wants violates existing laws, we're basically in "Thanks Obama" level of argument.
|
On July 13 2017 06:51 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing every problem being overshadowed by the constant screams of "Russia!". It's the same thing over and over. People seem to think it is acceptable to focus on something that has absolutely a negligible effect on western (or American, in this case) society at large. Even complaining when people express their opinions that they think there's much bigger issues than some insignificant country with the GPD of Italy that has goals which don't necessarily align with the goals of the society that we live in, but is constantly getting in the headlines because media companies know that people eat this shit up as the concept of "the foreign devil" is great clickbait. I don't know how I can help you understand. Russia is a problem that exists in the world, but it's not worth the attention that its receiving in the grander scheme of things. The media's consistent highlighting of this problem over others and driving the public conversation/narrative away from the things that affect people's every daily lives is ruining my mood.
I dont think this has much to do about Russia at all, so though I understand the gripe regarding the media attention, i think the only reason this line of criticism is popular is Trump's unpopularity. It could have been Iran, or even Germany and the fervor would still be the same.
|
On July 13 2017 06:56 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:48 RealityIsKing wrote:On July 13 2017 06:44 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:42 RealityIsKing wrote:On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore. People's time and effort are finite, it is important to prioritize. Yes it is. It is also important to recognize that your priorities will not necessarily be the same as your neighbor, or someone you have a discussion with, and to respect that. So what are YOUR top concerns for the country? I don't believe it's particularly relevant, and I'm still developing those as I go, but I don't think it's wrong to be alarmed when my President and his administration actively undermined the democratic process, and tried at every turn to cover it up. I also believe very strongly in healthcare and criminal justice reform, so that the peace of mind attached to healthcare isn't something people have to fight for, and so brown people can drive down the street without fear of being pulled over and shot because they weren't white. I believe big business and banks need to be properly regulated, because their interests directly clash with those of their customers, and I have no interest in taking part in another recession because bankers just didn't have enough money. But that's just off the top of my head, and from recent events.
So you too find yourself in opposition to the Democratic party...
On July 13 2017 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:34 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
This thread is just absolute trash lately.
I was going to respond to people saying they were "volunteers", but obviously people have no god damn clue what's going on and are just going to ignorantly and snidely get their lol's.
It's really sad. Or you could snidely ignore the article posted about the class action lawsuit bringing that issue through the court system. Honest question here, in your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government done in this case? Okay, I feel like I need to explain why the rocketing of the prison population was a bipartisan effort, and why Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton (pretty prominent Democrats) embraced prison labor even in their own home (Gov Mansion) Bill had the power to stop it and didn't, Hillary didn't even think it something worth thinking about. Instead she pontificated on what intellectual shortcomings made these people work for practically nothing for her just for a chance to be outside the prison walls for however long they could (or volunteers as some may call them) That's symbolic of the Democratic party when it comes to prison labor (modern American slavery). I mean I could go and show you how countless prisoners are in prison on bullshit charges (usually a parole/probation violation like smoking pot to deal with how incredibly messed up our country is to people who have paid their debt to society), or how every year people who were sentenced to die by our system are exonerated by pro bono lawyers who are ashamed of a system that can convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. Or how our prisons are in such deplorable conditions it's often cruel and unusual just to have to serve time (so little rehabilitation it's pathetic),or that people without family have no money in prison. That many people report it being easier for them to find drugs inside than out (although more expensive inside), because our "guards" are often just state sanctioned thugs who see their job not as protecting inmates, but punishing them. I mean it's a long and sordid list of the problems with the American Prison Industrial Complex, the idea that some lawsuit shows it's being addressed is absolutely moronic. And I raise the question again: In your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government have done in this case? Because if you want to prove that you understand political nuance, this is where you would do it. Because Prison systems, law enforcement, criminal law, it's all a very complicated system spanning multiple government organizations, multiple government bodies, and multiple laws that are both state and Federal. And this is true in basically every nation in the world that splits federal and state/provincial/territorial governments. If this goes through the court system, is deemed to violate laws, and the prisoners win, then this shows what is being done is illegal (within civil law). So, from there, how would a Federal Democrat super majority in all three Federal branches get the Texas police, court and prison system to change their criminal laws, convict less people, arrest less people, and have less people kept in prison? How would they ensure that the laws that are in place are not violated by privately run prisons so that lawsuits are not required to fix the issues? And no, those are not rhetorical questions, and no, I'm not expecting you to have a fully detailed legal essay for any of these. But if you feel like participating in political discussions, it would be nice to have more thought from you that extends past "things are broken and Democrats didn't fix it". Who would you hold accountable if not the people you can vote for that write the laws, assign people to enforce regulations, etc? Absolutely hold the elected officials accountable. Hold the police and courts accountable. Hold the private prison owners accountable But I'm not asking "who?", I'm asking "what?" Because in a governing system that runs through rule of law, and not Divine Right or dictatorial whim, problems have to be fixed through written law. And because of constitutional jurisdiction restricting the powers of each government body, there are also limits to what a Federal government can do to effect the States, and vice versa (barring constitutional amendment, which would be a valid, if optimistic, answer as well). But if someone (GH in this case) has no idea what can be done, how it should be done, or if anything he wants violates existing laws, we're basically in "Thanks Obama" level of argument.
People arguing we're bound to this shit system and terrible parties are exactly why we are.
|
On July 13 2017 06:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2017 06:12 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:03 nojok wrote:On July 13 2017 05:56 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
This thread is just absolute trash lately.
I was going to respond to people saying they were "volunteers", but obviously people have no god damn clue what's going on and are just going to ignorantly and snidely get their lol's.
It's really sad. Please dispense with the holier-than-thou broad strokes condemning those who actually find cause to be alarmed by current events, it adds nothing useful to the discussion. I wouldn't mind it so much if people were at all focused on how ineffectual our system is and why he's going to get away with it and what we need to do to stop it from happening in the future, but that's not what any of this is about. It's just 100+ pages of "OMG TRUMP RUSSIA!!?!?!?" Ummm, yeah, it's kind of a big deal. Our top elected official is waist-deep in a pretty serious scandal, and the implications are fucking awful. Just because you think it's not the biggest deal of them all doesn't mean other people can't feel differently. Idealistic pontificating about every last nook and cranny of corruption in the system is useless from a practical perspective, so people don't waste their time. How many Americans think about changing your election process to open the door to more political parties? You have only two parties which are more or less the same. One thing I've learned throughout this thread is that there is no actual barriers in the rules or process of the election system that bars other parties from participating. It's entirely a social and cultural view of politics that sustains the two party system. Voters don't want to consider anything except Democrats or Republicans, and serious political contenders either stand alone as independents, or bring themselves into the parties to have a "serious" run. Even on a State level, everything is Democrat or Republican, despite no requirement (from what I know) for State governments to affiliate with Federal. Yes but the problem is more complicated then that. The real fault is First Past The Post (FPTP). Winning is all the matters, coming second does nothing. So assuming the following hypothetical situation. Left group 1: 20% Left group 2: 25% Center group 18% Right group 1: 5% Right group 2: 32% Right group 2 wins the election and their candidate becomes Senator/President whatever No one else's vote matter If Left group 1 and 2 work together as 1 party they would have 45% (assuming no one leaves for another party) and they win instead. FPTP systems devolve into a 2 party system because winning is all that matters and you need the largest possible coalition of voters to beat the other side. If an independent were to rise in votes their ideals would get snatched up by whatever party is closer to their ideology to allow that party to capture his votes. Because splitting votes between the 2 means that neither wins. This is also why there are so many lies. Politicians want X but need to promise Y to win voters because voters who want X are not numerous enough to get you elected. In a proportional system where coming 2nd isn't worthless you get a lot more nuance in choice because candidates can afford to cater to a more niche voter bloc. I hate to keep bringing up "b-b-but in Canada" but... 1) Canada has a FPTP system. 2) We have 4 parties that have been near-constants in Federal Parliament for the last several decades, with a 5th party slowly sneaking in. Only two of those parties ever held power, one that is a single Province representative, but on the whole we've had enough minority governments that those smaller parties have had influence. 3) Here in BC, our Province has been a two party government for the most part, but one of our major political parties gained their prominence as another one collapsed in the 90's, and currently we (will) have a minority government with a 3rd party tipping the majority count. There are other two party governments around the world, but none seem to be as entrenched as long as the US' political parties have been. When is the last time that 3rd parties (plural) have been at least 10% of any sitting US government?
can you even have minority governments in the US? Hoenst question since I'm looking at it from the outside and basicly take the 2 party entrenchment as a given from their system. Yes I know you can vote other parties but if the position of president is so powerful and important, comparing it to for example the german chancelor since that's what I know a bit about, then even if they do get 10% 3rd parties somewhow, those still might not have any say whatsoever.
Perhaps if you get to a point where it's common for the 2 big parties to have to rely on brokering deals with smaller parties to be able to govern, but how do you get there?
Your point about local politics is one I do agree though (again without in detail understanding of the underlying system). As in, I really don't get why you can't even have those 3rd parties influence at least local politics. Maybe that could be a stepping stone but it just doesn't seem to happen either.
|
On July 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
So you too find yourself in opposition to the Democratic party...
I get it, you're not quite done railing against Democrats. But I fail to see what they're doing right now that deserves your ire, save for proposing a needed change to Obamacare so it may still function.
To begin with, I don't know where you got the idea I was a Democrat, if you think this statement is some kind of revelation.
|
3rd parties and independents can influence local politics; and sometimes do; i'ts just that they often don't. and when they show up they often try to do something splashy at the presidential level, rather than focus on local races they could actually win. they may not focus on building an actual viable PARTy that operates as a party and not just an extension of one famous individual who started it; or they do but they're just running a crazyh platform that has no chance of winning.
and the party apparatus has developed sufficiently that it's hard to run 3rd party without your platform getting coopted by on eof the existing 2 parties, which then can manage to beat you between their coopting of your platform + their existing base of people who party line vote. also hard to get sufficient funding to run a decent campaign outside the 2 major parties.
|
On July 13 2017 07:00 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
So you too find yourself in opposition to the Democratic party... I get it, you're not quite done railing against Democrats. But I fail to see what they're doing right now that deserves your ire, save for proposing a needed change to Obamacare so it may still function. To begin with, I don't know where you got the idea I was a Democrat, if you think this statement is some kind of revelation.
That makes your caping a bit more odd for sure. But that's how it's done. You point at how bad the Republican idea is, then you claim progress by offering superficial/should have already been there changes to the law that enshrines corporate insurance profits in perpetuity, then republicans shoot it down and you make that they don't want to work with you to enshrine profit for insurance corporations the issue. Then Republicans can compromise by agreeing to all the parts that help increase profits and as little of the stuff meant to kinda help people as possible. Then they both brag about how they fixed healthcare.
Unfortunately for Republicans/Democrats Trump is a raging idiot and keeps stepping all over their well laid plans in favor of brash proclamations.
|
|
|
On July 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:34 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
This thread is just absolute trash lately.
I was going to respond to people saying they were "volunteers", but obviously people have no god damn clue what's going on and are just going to ignorantly and snidely get their lol's.
It's really sad. Or you could snidely ignore the article posted about the class action lawsuit bringing that issue through the court system. Honest question here, in your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government done in this case? Okay, I feel like I need to explain why the rocketing of the prison population was a bipartisan effort, and why Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton (pretty prominent Democrats) embraced prison labor even in their own home (Gov Mansion) Bill had the power to stop it and didn't, Hillary didn't even think it something worth thinking about. Instead she pontificated on what intellectual shortcomings made these people work for practically nothing for her just for a chance to be outside the prison walls for however long they could (or volunteers as some may call them) That's symbolic of the Democratic party when it comes to prison labor (modern American slavery). I mean I could go and show you how countless prisoners are in prison on bullshit charges (usually a parole/probation violation like smoking pot to deal with how incredibly messed up our country is to people who have paid their debt to society), or how every year people who were sentenced to die by our system are exonerated by pro bono lawyers who are ashamed of a system that can convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. Or how our prisons are in such deplorable conditions it's often cruel and unusual just to have to serve time (so little rehabilitation it's pathetic),or that people without family have no money in prison. That many people report it being easier for them to find drugs inside than out (although more expensive inside), because our "guards" are often just state sanctioned thugs who see their job not as protecting inmates, but punishing them. I mean it's a long and sordid list of the problems with the American Prison Industrial Complex, the idea that some lawsuit shows it's being addressed is absolutely moronic. And I raise the question again: In your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government have done in this case? Because if you want to prove that you understand political nuance, this is where you would do it. Because Prison systems, law enforcement, criminal law, it's all a very complicated system spanning multiple government organizations, multiple government bodies, and multiple laws that are both state and Federal. And this is true in basically every nation in the world that splits federal and state/provincial/territorial governments. If this goes through the court system, is deemed to violate laws, and the prisoners win, then this shows what is being done is illegal (within civil law). So, from there, how would a Federal Democrat super majority in all three Federal branches get the Texas police, court and prison system to change their criminal laws, convict less people, arrest less people, and have less people kept in prison? How would they ensure that the laws that are in place are not violated by privately run prisons so that lawsuits are not required to fix the issues? And no, those are not rhetorical questions, and no, I'm not expecting you to have a fully detailed legal essay for any of these. But if you feel like participating in political discussions, it would be nice to have more thought from you that extends past "things are broken and Democrats didn't fix it". Who would you hold accountable if not the people you can vote for that write the laws, assign people to enforce regulations, etc? Absolutely hold the elected officials accountable. Hold the police and courts accountable. Hold the private prison owners accountable But I'm not asking "who?", I'm asking "what?" Because in a governing system that runs through rule of law, and not Divine Right or dictatorial whim, problems have to be fixed through written law. And because of constitutional jurisdiction restricting the powers of each government body, there are also limits to what a Federal government can do to effect the States, and vice versa (barring constitutional amendment, which would be a valid, if optimistic, answer as well). But if someone (GH in this case) has no idea what can be done, how it should be done, or if anything he wants violates existing laws, we're basically in "Thanks Obama" level of argument. People arguing we're bound to this shit system and terrible parties are exactly why we are.
So, to ask you again:
What would your ideal Federal government do?
And again, if your answer is "get a super majority in every branch of Federal government, rewrite the US constitution to take a lot more power away from the States and change everything up", I would at least consider that a valid legal course of action. People could have a lovely discussion about the probability of this happening, but at least it has a legal basis for actually accomplishing something.
But if your idea of good government is a party that waves a magic wand and fixes problems without any thought, then please leave the thread to people who are capable of arguing US politics.
|
On July 13 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:34 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
This thread is just absolute trash lately.
I was going to respond to people saying they were "volunteers", but obviously people have no god damn clue what's going on and are just going to ignorantly and snidely get their lol's.
It's really sad. Or you could snidely ignore the article posted about the class action lawsuit bringing that issue through the court system. Honest question here, in your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government done in this case? Okay, I feel like I need to explain why the rocketing of the prison population was a bipartisan effort, and why Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton (pretty prominent Democrats) embraced prison labor even in their own home (Gov Mansion) Bill had the power to stop it and didn't, Hillary didn't even think it something worth thinking about. Instead she pontificated on what intellectual shortcomings made these people work for practically nothing for her just for a chance to be outside the prison walls for however long they could (or volunteers as some may call them) That's symbolic of the Democratic party when it comes to prison labor (modern American slavery). I mean I could go and show you how countless prisoners are in prison on bullshit charges (usually a parole/probation violation like smoking pot to deal with how incredibly messed up our country is to people who have paid their debt to society), or how every year people who were sentenced to die by our system are exonerated by pro bono lawyers who are ashamed of a system that can convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. Or how our prisons are in such deplorable conditions it's often cruel and unusual just to have to serve time (so little rehabilitation it's pathetic),or that people without family have no money in prison. That many people report it being easier for them to find drugs inside than out (although more expensive inside), because our "guards" are often just state sanctioned thugs who see their job not as protecting inmates, but punishing them. I mean it's a long and sordid list of the problems with the American Prison Industrial Complex, the idea that some lawsuit shows it's being addressed is absolutely moronic. And I raise the question again: In your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government have done in this case? Because if you want to prove that you understand political nuance, this is where you would do it. Because Prison systems, law enforcement, criminal law, it's all a very complicated system spanning multiple government organizations, multiple government bodies, and multiple laws that are both state and Federal. And this is true in basically every nation in the world that splits federal and state/provincial/territorial governments. If this goes through the court system, is deemed to violate laws, and the prisoners win, then this shows what is being done is illegal (within civil law). So, from there, how would a Federal Democrat super majority in all three Federal branches get the Texas police, court and prison system to change their criminal laws, convict less people, arrest less people, and have less people kept in prison? How would they ensure that the laws that are in place are not violated by privately run prisons so that lawsuits are not required to fix the issues? And no, those are not rhetorical questions, and no, I'm not expecting you to have a fully detailed legal essay for any of these. But if you feel like participating in political discussions, it would be nice to have more thought from you that extends past "things are broken and Democrats didn't fix it". Who would you hold accountable if not the people you can vote for that write the laws, assign people to enforce regulations, etc? Absolutely hold the elected officials accountable. Hold the police and courts accountable. Hold the private prison owners accountable But I'm not asking "who?", I'm asking "what?" Because in a governing system that runs through rule of law, and not Divine Right or dictatorial whim, problems have to be fixed through written law. And because of constitutional jurisdiction restricting the powers of each government body, there are also limits to what a Federal government can do to effect the States, and vice versa (barring constitutional amendment, which would be a valid, if optimistic, answer as well). But if someone (GH in this case) has no idea what can be done, how it should be done, or if anything he wants violates existing laws, we're basically in "Thanks Obama" level of argument. People arguing we're bound to this shit system and terrible parties are exactly why we are. So, to ask you again: What would your ideal Federal government do? And again, if your answer is "get a super majority in every branch of Federal government, rewrite the US constitution to take a lot more power away from the States and change everything up", I would at least consider that a valid legal course of action. People could have a lovely discussion about the probability of this happening, but at least it has a legal basis for actually accomplishing something. But if your idea of good government is a party that waves a magic wand and fixes problems without any thought, then please leave the thread to people who are capable of arguing US politics.
Nope, just looking for one who's more interested in protecting the interest of the majority of Americans rather than a moneyed few and people who want the same, and willing to recognize neither R's or D's are it.
I'm with Gandhi in that I don't judge our society by how many billionaires we make or how nice their yachts are, I judge it by how we treat our most vulnerable. The disparity should send anyone into a rage, and everyone knows better than to think America is a meritocracy and that the vulnerable deserve their abuse by way of their own shortcomings.
There should be an intense shame among those with privilege in a country where you have the Walton's (who inherited a business most of them did little to nothing to build) paying people so little they need assistance just to float at the poverty line, yet the Walton's enjoy things like $150 million dollar yachts.
Meanwhile the Democrats are funneling money from the Walton's through superPAC's. I don't think people still yet appreciate just how wrong the Democratic party is and why they shouldn't be blowing off the idea of a new party or a total and immediate overhaul and instead be standing next to me demanding it.
Just wait for Mueller to tell you nothing is going to happen about Russia and in the meantime join me in your circles demanding radical change/a party legitimately intent on helping those that are least capable of helping themselves.
|
On July 13 2017 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:34 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
This thread is just absolute trash lately.
I was going to respond to people saying they were "volunteers", but obviously people have no god damn clue what's going on and are just going to ignorantly and snidely get their lol's.
It's really sad. Or you could snidely ignore the article posted about the class action lawsuit bringing that issue through the court system. Honest question here, in your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government done in this case? Okay, I feel like I need to explain why the rocketing of the prison population was a bipartisan effort, and why Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton (pretty prominent Democrats) embraced prison labor even in their own home (Gov Mansion) Bill had the power to stop it and didn't, Hillary didn't even think it something worth thinking about. Instead she pontificated on what intellectual shortcomings made these people work for practically nothing for her just for a chance to be outside the prison walls for however long they could (or volunteers as some may call them) That's symbolic of the Democratic party when it comes to prison labor (modern American slavery). I mean I could go and show you how countless prisoners are in prison on bullshit charges (usually a parole/probation violation like smoking pot to deal with how incredibly messed up our country is to people who have paid their debt to society), or how every year people who were sentenced to die by our system are exonerated by pro bono lawyers who are ashamed of a system that can convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. Or how our prisons are in such deplorable conditions it's often cruel and unusual just to have to serve time (so little rehabilitation it's pathetic),or that people without family have no money in prison. That many people report it being easier for them to find drugs inside than out (although more expensive inside), because our "guards" are often just state sanctioned thugs who see their job not as protecting inmates, but punishing them. I mean it's a long and sordid list of the problems with the American Prison Industrial Complex, the idea that some lawsuit shows it's being addressed is absolutely moronic. And I raise the question again: In your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government have done in this case? Because if you want to prove that you understand political nuance, this is where you would do it. Because Prison systems, law enforcement, criminal law, it's all a very complicated system spanning multiple government organizations, multiple government bodies, and multiple laws that are both state and Federal. And this is true in basically every nation in the world that splits federal and state/provincial/territorial governments. If this goes through the court system, is deemed to violate laws, and the prisoners win, then this shows what is being done is illegal (within civil law). So, from there, how would a Federal Democrat super majority in all three Federal branches get the Texas police, court and prison system to change their criminal laws, convict less people, arrest less people, and have less people kept in prison? How would they ensure that the laws that are in place are not violated by privately run prisons so that lawsuits are not required to fix the issues? And no, those are not rhetorical questions, and no, I'm not expecting you to have a fully detailed legal essay for any of these. But if you feel like participating in political discussions, it would be nice to have more thought from you that extends past "things are broken and Democrats didn't fix it". Who would you hold accountable if not the people you can vote for that write the laws, assign people to enforce regulations, etc? Absolutely hold the elected officials accountable. Hold the police and courts accountable. Hold the private prison owners accountable But I'm not asking "who?", I'm asking "what?" Because in a governing system that runs through rule of law, and not Divine Right or dictatorial whim, problems have to be fixed through written law. And because of constitutional jurisdiction restricting the powers of each government body, there are also limits to what a Federal government can do to effect the States, and vice versa (barring constitutional amendment, which would be a valid, if optimistic, answer as well). But if someone (GH in this case) has no idea what can be done, how it should be done, or if anything he wants violates existing laws, we're basically in "Thanks Obama" level of argument. People arguing we're bound to this shit system and terrible parties are exactly why we are. So, to ask you again: What would your ideal Federal government do? And again, if your answer is "get a super majority in every branch of Federal government, rewrite the US constitution to take a lot more power away from the States and change everything up", I would at least consider that a valid legal course of action. People could have a lovely discussion about the probability of this happening, but at least it has a legal basis for actually accomplishing something. But if your idea of good government is a party that waves a magic wand and fixes problems without any thought, then please leave the thread to people who are capable of arguing US politics. Nope, just looking for one who's more interested in protecting the interest of the majority of Americans rather than a moneyed few and people who want the same, and willing to recognize neither R's or D's are it.
So you don't want the issues fixed, don't want laws rewritten, don't want any actual changes.
As long as the sitting government has the ideals, even without the political know-how to make any of those ideals happen, you will be satisfied?
|
On July 13 2017 06:58 Toadesstern wrote:
Perhaps if you get to a point where it's common for the 2 big parties to have to rely on brokering deals with smaller parties to be able to govern, but how do you get there?
I could see a regional party managing it by concentrating nationwide resources on a few states and conceding presidential elections. The party could then take some Senate seats and possibly end up in a minority-majority situation (e.g. a 48-47-5 split).
There are two ways I see to get to a strong regional party; either one state-level party messes up badly and fractures, with unpopular incumbents retaining the party nomination but getting voted out, or the two parties extremize against each other and the third party successfully claims the center.
|
On July 13 2017 06:48 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:44 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:42 RealityIsKing wrote:On July 13 2017 06:36 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't understand how some of you still aren't getting this...
The story isn't the "scandal" the story is that this is all theater and you're all going to be disappointed/surprised when it turns out to basically go nowhere (despite how bad it is) and act like folks like myself didn't see this a mile away and tried desperately to get you to see that. Assume what you say is true, I and hopefully most others are familiar with elected officials having a history of not receiving the punishment they deserve for the shit they pull off. That doesn't mean for a moment that I'm just going to accept what they do as normal, and just not mention it. You have your priorities, please don't project them on me or anyone else. We are sooooo far beyond "mentioning it", yeah, if your priority is following every little drip of this Trump/Russia story imo you have bad priorities. There are Americans dying/suffering simply because politicians don't see the political advantage in helping them, and they don't get headlines because people like yourself are more likely to click Russia stories and the 6 corporations who own most of the media don't particularly like stories focused on how their greed and exploitation contributes to such abuses. If people engrossed themselves in the suffering and deaths of so many Americans as they are this Russia nonsense we might actually have a chance at addressing them, but no, Russia!!!!!!! Which, hey, if we were actually going to do something about it, would be an interesting news story, but we aren't, so it isn't. I don't think you have any idea how exhausting it is seeing you come into every argument, and doing the same thing over and over. You never think an issue is worth the exposure it gets because you think there's always a more important issue, and you repeatedly, and unprovoked, lambaste people for not holding the same list of "correct priorities" that you do. If you don't understand why consistently breaking evidence in a large-scale scandal is getting headlines and occupies discussion, I don't know how I can help you. Multiple problems are allowed to exist, just because one story is developing doesn't mean there are no other problems in the world, or that people aren't aware of them. You think you're some kind of savior reminding people of all the woes of the world, but most of us are pretty generally aware of how shitty things are. Your consistent derailing of discussions about unrelated topics is growing old, and I'm not in the mood to indulge it anymore. People's time and effort are finite, it is important to prioritize. Yes it is. It is also important to recognize that your priorities will not necessarily be the same as your neighbor, or someone you have a discussion with, and to respect that. So what are YOUR top concerns for the country?
I'll answer that: entitlement reform, healthcare reform, foreign policy, Russia/Trump, and potentially reforming some elements of how Washington works (electoral system, etc.). I realize the last part has no chance of happening soon, so I don't spend my time thinking about it.
Entitlement reform, healthcare reform, and foreign policy are priorities because they're impact/change is potentially achievable and affect infinitely many more people than something like prison reform and/or trying to fix women's veterans suicide. They are controversial, and will require public discourse to be resolved in an effective manner.
Trump/Russia is obviously important because the president is the most powerful man in the US and the possibility that he's acting in the interest of a hostile foreign government has massive implications for the country.
With something as niche, small, and low visibility as women's veterans' suicide, not only does it barely move the needle, I'd have to take a significant time to make sure that the research supporting GH's contention is even valid. As a trained statistician, I can personally attest that a LOT (possibly a majority) of published research is next to worthless. I don't have the time or will to research those types of things in my spare time. I'll let the academics handle it.
In addition, what would a conversation on such a topic even look like? "Well, suicides are up. Are there any options available to lower it? Do we have the resources?" Such a topic is simple and uncontroversial enough that it doesn't require a massive public discussion to deal with. If someone wants to spend their time writing their elected official, more power to them. But I don't see how discussing it on an internet forum helps.
By the way, these are off the top of my head. I probably missed some other important issues.
|
On July 13 2017 06:58 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 06:45 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2017 06:12 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:03 nojok wrote:On July 13 2017 05:56 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 05:50 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
This thread is just absolute trash lately.
I was going to respond to people saying they were "volunteers", but obviously people have no god damn clue what's going on and are just going to ignorantly and snidely get their lol's.
It's really sad. Please dispense with the holier-than-thou broad strokes condemning those who actually find cause to be alarmed by current events, it adds nothing useful to the discussion. I wouldn't mind it so much if people were at all focused on how ineffectual our system is and why he's going to get away with it and what we need to do to stop it from happening in the future, but that's not what any of this is about. It's just 100+ pages of "OMG TRUMP RUSSIA!!?!?!?" Ummm, yeah, it's kind of a big deal. Our top elected official is waist-deep in a pretty serious scandal, and the implications are fucking awful. Just because you think it's not the biggest deal of them all doesn't mean other people can't feel differently. Idealistic pontificating about every last nook and cranny of corruption in the system is useless from a practical perspective, so people don't waste their time. How many Americans think about changing your election process to open the door to more political parties? You have only two parties which are more or less the same. One thing I've learned throughout this thread is that there is no actual barriers in the rules or process of the election system that bars other parties from participating. It's entirely a social and cultural view of politics that sustains the two party system. Voters don't want to consider anything except Democrats or Republicans, and serious political contenders either stand alone as independents, or bring themselves into the parties to have a "serious" run. Even on a State level, everything is Democrat or Republican, despite no requirement (from what I know) for State governments to affiliate with Federal. Yes but the problem is more complicated then that. The real fault is First Past The Post (FPTP). Winning is all the matters, coming second does nothing. So assuming the following hypothetical situation. Left group 1: 20% Left group 2: 25% Center group 18% Right group 1: 5% Right group 2: 32% Right group 2 wins the election and their candidate becomes Senator/President whatever No one else's vote matter If Left group 1 and 2 work together as 1 party they would have 45% (assuming no one leaves for another party) and they win instead. FPTP systems devolve into a 2 party system because winning is all that matters and you need the largest possible coalition of voters to beat the other side. If an independent were to rise in votes their ideals would get snatched up by whatever party is closer to their ideology to allow that party to capture his votes. Because splitting votes between the 2 means that neither wins. This is also why there are so many lies. Politicians want X but need to promise Y to win voters because voters who want X are not numerous enough to get you elected. In a proportional system where coming 2nd isn't worthless you get a lot more nuance in choice because candidates can afford to cater to a more niche voter bloc. I hate to keep bringing up "b-b-but in Canada" but... 1) Canada has a FPTP system. 2) We have 4 parties that have been near-constants in Federal Parliament for the last several decades, with a 5th party slowly sneaking in. Only two of those parties ever held power, one that is a single Province representative, but on the whole we've had enough minority governments that those smaller parties have had influence. 3) Here in BC, our Province has been a two party government for the most part, but one of our major political parties gained their prominence as another one collapsed in the 90's, and currently we (will) have a minority government with a 3rd party tipping the majority count. There are other two party governments around the world, but none seem to be as entrenched as long as the US' political parties have been. When is the last time that 3rd parties (plural) have been at least 10% of any sitting US government? can you even have minority governments in the US? Hoenst question since I'm looking at it from the outside and basicly take the 2 party entrenchment as a given from their system. Yes I know you can vote other parties but if the position of president is so powerful and important, comparing it to for example the german chancelor since that's what I know a bit about, then even if they do get 10% 3rd parties somewhow, those still might not have any say whatsoever. Perhaps if you get to a point where it's common for the 2 big parties to have to rely on brokering deals with smaller parties to be able to govern, but how do you get there? Your point about local politics is one I do agree though (again without in detail understanding of the underlying system). As in, I really don't get why you can't even have those 3rd parties influence at least local politics. Maybe that could be a stepping stone but it just doesn't seem to happen either.
I think it's that Congress can have their bills stopped by the Senate, and Senate by the President, which forces a system that can hope to get all three branches roughly aligned. And that basically means 2 parties.
I can't imagine the nightmare of having a minority in Congress, a minority in Senate and a President who likes neither houses.
Would be about as lameduck as the current one.
|
On July 13 2017 07:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 06:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:34 a_flayer wrote:On July 13 2017 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 13 2017 05:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On July 13 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
This thread is just absolute trash lately.
I was going to respond to people saying they were "volunteers", but obviously people have no god damn clue what's going on and are just going to ignorantly and snidely get their lol's.
It's really sad. Or you could snidely ignore the article posted about the class action lawsuit bringing that issue through the court system. Honest question here, in your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government done in this case? Okay, I feel like I need to explain why the rocketing of the prison population was a bipartisan effort, and why Democrats like Bill and Hillary Clinton (pretty prominent Democrats) embraced prison labor even in their own home (Gov Mansion) Bill had the power to stop it and didn't, Hillary didn't even think it something worth thinking about. Instead she pontificated on what intellectual shortcomings made these people work for practically nothing for her just for a chance to be outside the prison walls for however long they could (or volunteers as some may call them) That's symbolic of the Democratic party when it comes to prison labor (modern American slavery). I mean I could go and show you how countless prisoners are in prison on bullshit charges (usually a parole/probation violation like smoking pot to deal with how incredibly messed up our country is to people who have paid their debt to society), or how every year people who were sentenced to die by our system are exonerated by pro bono lawyers who are ashamed of a system that can convict an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. Or how our prisons are in such deplorable conditions it's often cruel and unusual just to have to serve time (so little rehabilitation it's pathetic),or that people without family have no money in prison. That many people report it being easier for them to find drugs inside than out (although more expensive inside), because our "guards" are often just state sanctioned thugs who see their job not as protecting inmates, but punishing them. I mean it's a long and sordid list of the problems with the American Prison Industrial Complex, the idea that some lawsuit shows it's being addressed is absolutely moronic. And I raise the question again: In your ideal sitting government, what would lawmakers in the federal government have done in this case? Because if you want to prove that you understand political nuance, this is where you would do it. Because Prison systems, law enforcement, criminal law, it's all a very complicated system spanning multiple government organizations, multiple government bodies, and multiple laws that are both state and Federal. And this is true in basically every nation in the world that splits federal and state/provincial/territorial governments. If this goes through the court system, is deemed to violate laws, and the prisoners win, then this shows what is being done is illegal (within civil law). So, from there, how would a Federal Democrat super majority in all three Federal branches get the Texas police, court and prison system to change their criminal laws, convict less people, arrest less people, and have less people kept in prison? How would they ensure that the laws that are in place are not violated by privately run prisons so that lawsuits are not required to fix the issues? And no, those are not rhetorical questions, and no, I'm not expecting you to have a fully detailed legal essay for any of these. But if you feel like participating in political discussions, it would be nice to have more thought from you that extends past "things are broken and Democrats didn't fix it". Who would you hold accountable if not the people you can vote for that write the laws, assign people to enforce regulations, etc? Absolutely hold the elected officials accountable. Hold the police and courts accountable. Hold the private prison owners accountable But I'm not asking "who?", I'm asking "what?" Because in a governing system that runs through rule of law, and not Divine Right or dictatorial whim, problems have to be fixed through written law. And because of constitutional jurisdiction restricting the powers of each government body, there are also limits to what a Federal government can do to effect the States, and vice versa (barring constitutional amendment, which would be a valid, if optimistic, answer as well). But if someone (GH in this case) has no idea what can be done, how it should be done, or if anything he wants violates existing laws, we're basically in "Thanks Obama" level of argument. People arguing we're bound to this shit system and terrible parties are exactly why we are. So, to ask you again: What would your ideal Federal government do? And again, if your answer is "get a super majority in every branch of Federal government, rewrite the US constitution to take a lot more power away from the States and change everything up", I would at least consider that a valid legal course of action. People could have a lovely discussion about the probability of this happening, but at least it has a legal basis for actually accomplishing something. But if your idea of good government is a party that waves a magic wand and fixes problems without any thought, then please leave the thread to people who are capable of arguing US politics. Nope, just looking for one who's more interested in protecting the interest of the majority of Americans rather than a moneyed few and people who want the same, and willing to recognize neither R's or D's are it.
Making as much noise as you do about it, when we all know our 2-party system is awful, isn't useful. It's idyllic posturing. Any change that could possibly satisfy you will take a very long time to enact, practically speaking, and it happens 1 discussion at a time, and 1 vote at a time, because that's the system we have. I would love to shake a wand and change everything overnight, but it doesn't work that way, and you need to recognize that just like I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
