US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8113
Forum Index > Closed |
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_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On July 19 2017 00:27 On_Slaught wrote: I don't expect the Dems to win the Senate back, tho it would be nice. Much better chance with the house, which is enough to stall the President on all non SCOTUS/EO issues. What are there chances of that? I thought most state districts were Gerrymandered beyond hope? | ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On July 18 2017 23:00 ticklishmusic wrote: do you expect the republicans to be thinking long term? they spent most of the decade talking about how they were going to repeal and replace obamacare, and look where they are now. plus, the 2018 senate map is very favorable for them so they have minimal concern about losing their majority until 2024. Not a big enough lead for GOP. And just because individual Senators go up for a vote every six years does not mean a favorable 2018 draw makes 2024 the next shot. | ||
chocorush
694 Posts
On July 19 2017 00:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: What are there chances of that? I thought most state districts were Gerrymandered beyond hope? US Senators do not have districts. | ||
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2616 Posts
On July 18 2017 15:17 LegalLord wrote: That actually makes me quite upset. If Trump were for all-American work to the point of being a hardliner against immigration of all forms, at least end the H1-B program and certainly don't expand H-2B. The fuck. I want to make a post about conservative media outlets and their coverage of Trump in general and specifically this article. Trump lied about immigration. I hoped that at least he meant what he said when it came to the signature issue of his campaign. But he didn't. Trump's words on immigration sounded a lot better to me than Clinton's "hemispheric common market" with totally open borders. I do believe that lots of regular Americans have seen their livelihoods destroyed by the influx of millions of illegal immigrants. Even in higher paying jobs like the software industry, outsourcing and abuse of stuff like H1B visas have really hurt American workers. Trump promised he would fix these problems. Instead he's done the exact opposite, because his business profits from it. Now, one of the main arguments advanced by conservative media voices for electing Trump was that with HRC, the country had zero chance of a conservative agenda. But with Trump, there was still a chance, and if he did not stick by his words, then we could hold him accountable. Then Trump got elected and the outpouring of Russian revelations began, with the crowning moment so far definitely being the Don Jr. emails. Far from holding the man accountable for his Russian ties, these conservative commentators have all defended Trump with the most ridiculous arguments in the world. And now Trump has done literally the exact opposite of what he was elected to do when it comes to immigration, his signature campaign issue. If the “conservative” media was ever going to hold Trump accountable for his actions, it would be now. And what do Hannity, LImbaugh, Levin, etc. say? Not a damn thing, because even Olympic level mental gymnastics cannot distort the words in this article. So they just don’t cover it. This article does not exist in their world. It is profoundly disgusting to watch. | ||
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
"much better chance with the house" is what I was talking about. I agree that the Senate is unlikely to swap. | ||
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On July 19 2017 00:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: What are there chances of that? I thought most state districts were Gerrymandered beyond hope? Well at least the FL constitution has this as the first section: SECTION 1. Political power.—All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people. I wonder if you can take gerrymandered areas to court and win easy because a person is creating problems for people to vote correctly. I know that the Supreme Court is currently looking into a case that deals with the same issue in Texas where they found Republicans have gerrymandered them so badly. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On July 19 2017 00:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: What are there chances of that? I thought most state districts were Gerrymandered beyond hope? Dems need +7 generic ballot to win the house, currently they're at +9-10 | ||
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On July 19 2017 00:52 Nevuk wrote: Dems need +7 generic ballot to win the house, currently they're at +9-10 Isn't that still within margin of error though? Polling being slightly favorable to one side and then the other one winning has happened a lot recently. On July 19 2017 00:49 ShoCkeyy wrote: Well at least the FL constitution has this as the first section: SECTION 1. Political power.—All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people. I wonder if you can take gerrymandered areas to court and win easy because a person is creating problems for people to vote correctly. I know that the Supreme Court is currently looking into a case that deals with the same issue in Texas where they found Republicans have gerrymandered them so badly. In North Carolina it has already happened as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/us/politics/supreme-court-north-carolina-congressional-districts.html | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
On July 19 2017 00:49 ShoCkeyy wrote: Well at least the FL constitution has this as the first section: SECTION 1. Political power.—All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people. I wonder if you can take gerrymandered areas to court and win easy because a person is creating problems for people to vote correctly. I know that the Supreme Court is currently looking into a case that deals with the same issue in Texas where they found Republicans have gerrymandered them so badly. I remember that story as well. It's happened on the state level but not the federal level. If they can win a SCOTUS decision on gerrymandering on the federal level, then it will help both parties, honestly. But right now, Dems needs the SCOTUS to come through and vote against that one. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I'm not really sure how districts should be setup; it's hard to think of say a deterministic algorithm that would do a great job at setting up districts. and there's a lot of different ways to setup districts that have merit, which means there's a lot of potential choice, and where there's potential choice there's usually a way to take political advantage of it. there's also some issue that the most obvious methods of setting up districts may have a natural effect similar to gerrymandering. | ||
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
| ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
On July 19 2017 01:03 zlefin wrote: So, on gerrymandering, what are the main solutions? I know there's making non-partisan redistricting commissions (thoug hI'm not quite sure how you make them non-partisan) I'm not really sure how districts should be setup; it's hard to think of say a deterministic algorithm that would do a great job at setting up districts. and there's a lot of different ways to setup districts that have merit, which means there's a lot of potential choice, and where there's potential choice there's usually a way to take political advantage of it. there's also some issue that the most obvious methods of setting up districts may have a natural effect similar to gerrymandering. Have a 3 man/woman team for each side that draws the maps. Compromise on how it's done. Either that or you redraw them every year from someone who isn't affiliated with any political party (difficult) and they handle that. It honestly all comes down to ethics and moral. | ||
Gahlo
United States35142 Posts
On July 18 2017 23:20 OuchyDathurts wrote: On the black appearance/afro in America topic. Colin Kaepernick needs to cut his afro if he wants to try and get back in the NFL. THE N.F.L. The perception of black folks and having to conform to white culture to be accepted is real af in America. + Show Spoiler + Mike Vick is also, quite frankly, not the brightest bulb on the tree. Is Kaepernicks politics something that makes teams wary of signing him? Yeah, and that sucks. But what keeps him from not being signed is that he straight up isn't good anymore. His talent isn't worth the baggage. | ||
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On July 19 2017 01:03 zlefin wrote: So, on gerrymandering, what are the main solutions? I know there's making non-partisan redistricting commissions (thoug hI'm not quite sure how you make them non-partisan) I'm not really sure how districts should be setup; it's hard to think of say a deterministic algorithm that would do a great job at setting up districts. and there's a lot of different ways to setup districts that have merit, which means there's a lot of potential choice, and where there's potential choice there's usually a way to take political advantage of it. there's also some issue that the most obvious methods of setting up districts may have a natural effect similar to gerrymandering. The US seems to have some severe aversion to changing a broken system if the fix isn't perfect (or, I suppose, it's opposition from the ones who stand to lose the most). Having an independent group drawing the district lines works fine for a lot of countries. Have some basic guidelines based on population, geographical lines, etc. and you have a working system. It won't be perfect, but it doesn't have to be. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 19 2017 01:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Have a 3 man/woman team for each side that draws the maps. Compromise on how it's done. Either that or you redraw them every year from someone who isn't affiliated with any political party (difficult) and they handle that. It honestly all comes down to ethics and moral. what if they can't agree on a compromise? if we had a way to reliably select people for high ethics/morals we wouldn't have these issues in the first place, so that doesn't seem like an answer. how do you classify people not affiliated with a party? they still may well have leanings/opinions and such. as with many things, the devil is in the details, and it's really quite hard to do once you get down to it, especially considering the degree to which some will leverage any small advantage to their favor. | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
NEW YORK -- Walmart is apologizing after a racial slur was used in a product description by a third-party vendor on its website. The seller used the "n word" in reference to the color of a hair cap. Walmart says it has removed the listing from its website and called it a "clear violation of our policy." It said it was "appalled that this third-party seller listed their item with this description on our online marketplace." It says it is investigating the seller to find out how it happened. Walmart has been trying hard to compete better with online leader Amazon, and now sells 50 million products on its site including those from third-party sellers. Though it has never shared the exact breakdown, Walmart.com has thousands of such vendors. CBS San Francisco reports the validity of the seller has been called into question. The owner of Jagazi Naturals told the Daily News someone copied her brand and posted the product with the insulting description. "Considering the fact that I'm a black woman from Nigeria, what really pains me is that I get these emails from other black people who are in pain because of that word," said Chizo Onuh, who is based in London. The reaction on Twitter was also strong. Several celebrities took to the social network to call out Walmart on the language. Meanwile, Walmart says it is investigating the seller to find out how it happened. Walmart has been trying hard to compete better with online leader Amazon, and now sells 50 million products on its site including those from third-party sellers. Though it has never shared the exact breakdown, Walmart.com has thousands of such vendors. Source | ||
ZerOCoolSC2
8982 Posts
On July 19 2017 01:12 zlefin wrote: what if they can't agree on a compromise? if we had a way to reliably select people for high ethics/morals we wouldn't have these issues in the first place, so that doesn't seem like an answer. how do you classify people not affiliated with a party? they still may well have leanings/opinions and such. as with many things, the devil is in the details, and it's really quite hard to do once you get down to it, especially considering the degree to which some will leverage any small advantage to their favor. You're right. It isn't easy and it probably isn't the best way to go about it. That's just how I see it happening if it wants to be done on a bi-partisan effort. There's really no one way to fix this. The easiest way would be to be to grid the entire state and leave it at that, increase/decrease the size of the grid depending on the variables so that more populous areas get their representation and the less populated areas get theirs. | ||
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On July 19 2017 01:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Have a 3 man/woman team for each side that draws the maps. Compromise on how it's done. Either that or you redraw them every year from someone who isn't affiliated with any political party (difficult) and they handle that. It honestly all comes down to ethics and moral. Is it required for a state to even have districts, my understanding is it isn't? States could move to something like a ranked or proportional voting mechanism if they wanted (which comes with its own pros and cons). | ||
| ||