EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2655
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11943 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27234 Posts
On September 21 2020 15:58 Simberto wrote: Nothing, a lot of stuff in the US is horribly broken. Indeed, I suppose outside of the US’ importance globally it’s what makes following its politics so simultaneously fascinating and aggravating. A lot of its systems are good systems by design as long as the political culture doesn’t lead to a de facto set of 2 parties who block whatever the other one does in terms of legislation or appointments, even if its legislation they themselves would have suggested in the past. Lucky the US isn’t like that huh? There’s a lot to like in the spirit and some of the mechanisms that underpin the US system, even if in the current era some of them are outright detrimental. The Founding Fathers had some good ideas, equally they weren’t soothsayers, hell even in my lifetime the internet has come and been transformative (and been quite destructive in the political realm anyway, although a net positive). | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
It's kinda amusing how the liberals are still so indignant about the R's hypocrisy. What did people expect, they were slimy politicians before and now that Trump is running the show there are no more brakes on this crazy train. The silver lining is this - imagine Rs actually trying to ram through their nominee in record time ( which incidentally is what is needed now as early voting has started and the election is very much around the corner), there's a decent chance liberals will be in a good position to mobilize their pissed supporters as they did in 2018. RBG's death and R's subsequent power play can be 2020's Kavanaugh. There really might be hell to pay as a senator is used to saying. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
What's not honest is bending over backwards to pretend he's not the one pushing the envelope. McConnel has made a career out of indiscriminate application of tools previously held in check by propriety. He's been very clear that he has no respect for any rule that's not written down, and in holding such a position, he forces his opponents to get out their pens. Then, of course, he takes the new rule and exploits it further. I do think he may lose the war by winning too many battles. Politicians in a democracy are, at the end of the day, there to implement the will of their people. The republicans, far more ruthless on the field, have been able to repeatedly implement the will of a very specific minority of their country's people. The bigger the gap between what they do and what the average american expects, though, the further below the belt they have to swing to continue achieving their goals. Provided US democracy still functions after November, there will be a limit somewhere. We might even have reached it. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18396 Posts
On September 21 2020 19:16 Belisarius wrote: I'm generally of a don't-hate-the-player-hate-the-game persuasion. From that perspective, McConnel is a shamelessly effective player, constantly exploiting the cracks papered over by wishy-washy sportsmanship handshakes. As much as I disagree with him, I think it's perfectly honest to take a tough-luck stance that backs him and his methods. What's not honest is bending over backwards to pretend he's not the one pushing the envelope. McConnel has made a career out of indiscriminate application of tools previously held in check by propriety. He's been very clear that he has no respect for any rule that's not written down, and in holding such a position, he forces his opponents to get out their pens. Then, of course, he takes the new rule and exploits it further. I do think he may lose the war by winning too many battles. Politicians in a democracy are, at the end of the day, there to implement the will of their people. The republicans, far more ruthless on the field, have been able to repeatedly implement the will of a very specific minority of their country's people. The bigger the gap between what they do and what the average american expects, though, the further below the belt they have to swing to continue achieving their goals. Provided US democracy still functions after November, there will be a limit somewhere. We might even have reached it. On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, politics isn't a sports match nor a game of Catan amongst friends. The rules shouldn't be the only thing guiding someone's actions, nor should *winning* be the aim. The aim should be to do the best for your country. And if you 4 years ago declared that the best for the country was to let the voters decide on what president gets to appoint a SC justice in an election year, then you had better be able to explain why that same does not hold now. Every explanation so far has been "yeah, 4 years ago we were sticking it to the dems with a thin veneer of democracy to disguise the absurd partisan crock of shit it was". And there is a severe problem in that kind of politics as it just means any time the roles switch, the majority *should* do everything they can to undo what the other party did, and push through their own ideas. Which means that you get exactly the kind of weird and unreliable politics you have had recently. "We reached an agreement with Iran" -> "We are revoking the agreement and sanctioning the hell out of them" -> whatever the next president agrees to flip back on. The same for Paris. But it's also internal stuff: the same would have happened for ACA, but McCain got in the way. So imagine you do do absolutely everything in your power to push through your party's most extreme ideas, including appointing a very conservative judge to replace a very liberal one. Then in a few months, or a few years, your party loses its power base, and the democrats can apparently not fire justices, but they can add however many they please. The same goes for international treaties. So imagine the long term effects if each president/senate's first acts are to undo everything the other party did: Biden comes into power and signals he won't abide by Trump's "new NAFTA", rejoins the WHO, rejoins Obama's Iran deal, and recommits to the Paris accords. He also moves the embassy in Israel back to Tel Aviv. With regards to the courts, he nominates 10 liberal justices which the senate approves. Then the republicans win a few years later, and undo all the treaties again. revoke any carbon taxes, and appoint 20 conservative justices to the SC. The SC flipping means all the cases that had been tried in the meantime get brought before it all over again so the rulings can be overturned. It literally means nobody can plan past 2 years (senate/house can flip) or 4 years (president) into the future on how to deal with the federal government. Which gets you excluded or ignored by both local governments (who just want to deal with their problems, not put up with Washington telling them that everything they did for the last 4 years should be undone now) and international partners (who view you as too unreliable to agree anything except the shortest of deals with). This will work short(ish) term, but in the long term completely erodes any power Washington holds. I guess in a Machiavellian way, small government people will view this as the best outcome? A humongous but entirely deadlocked DC is effectively the same as no federal government at all (it just costs a fortune in taxes)? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 21 2020 15:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: Can they do that with a simple majority? That seem like quite a substantial change. If any government can just add X seats and get their guys in the Court, what prevents every single administration from adding more justices and chose extremely partisan ones? Nothing. The American political system is horrendously broken and has only ever been held together by a certain sense of decency that is clearly gone now. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 21 2020 15:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: Can they do that with a simple majority? That seem like quite a substantial change. If any government can just add X seats and get their guys in the Court, what prevents every single administration from adding more justices and chose extremely partisan ones? Yes, they can. They would have to revoke the filibuster entirely at the start of the term, but it'd be moronic for democrats not to do that anyways. They're never getting a supermajority again. The only thing that has ever prevented it is tradition and the fear that the other side would start doing it. The preventative mechanism in theory was that voters would punish insane behavior such as packing the courts with 5 year old leftists, but I'm not sure that's held true. (It's happened a few times. The size of the court has gone both up and down, though most of that was in the 1800s. FDR threatened to do it and the SC backed down instead of having their power diluted). | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Reps: I WANT TO EAT ALL THE CANDY Dems: You can't eat all the candy, you'll be sick. We should look into the environment what as the world is on fire. Reps: You won't let me do what I want so I won't let you do what you want! Dems: What? No, you would actually be sick, it would be unpleasant for everyone. Reps: FUCK YOU, LIBS WANT TO TAKE YOUR CANDY. Dems: What? Reps: HAHA NOW WE HAVE ALLTEH CANDY AND WE EAT IT Dems: Wait, stop, don't.... Reps: Vomits profusely. ANTIFA MADE US SICK! | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8152 Posts
Now that we are in an era of superpartisanship where half the country is ready to make stuff like wearing a mask during an epidemic a partisan issue, it seems that a lot of the institutions are simply not functioning. The Supreme Court being one of them. It's designed to be THE non partisan institution. That's the very reason Justices have their jobs for life. If the Republicans don't care about the spirit of the Constitutions and only see rules as an obstacle to overcome, I guess the whole Constitution is put in jeopardy. But anyway, I don't think it's wise for Biden to add X (liberal) justices to the Supreme Court. You can be certain that the Republicans will add ten more, young, ultraconservative Justices the next time they are in power if we go down that road. Anyhow. I said when some of our friends screamed that Clinton would be just as terrible as Trump that beside the fact that it was a ridiculous assumption, the SC picks only should make anyone left minded fucking hope she won. You can kiss goodbye to the healthcare of dozens of millions of people, of the reproductive rights of american women and so on and so forth. Not that said friends care about any of that anyway. I will ready some bitter popcorns for when a real progressive wins and can't do shit because every policy he or she tries to implement is struck down by an ultraconservative SC. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 21 2020 15:11 Zambrah wrote: Congress can pass legislation adding additional justices to the Supreme Court, theoretically we could see an expansion from 9 to, say, 13 seats, which would remedy the Republicans fuckery. Obviously this could in turn be abused against the Democrats in the future, and I doubt they have the balls to do it anyways, especially with Joe “Nothing Will Fundamentally Change” Biden being President. This would not remedy anything. This would completely invalidate the court. From what I have read, senate/house don't actually need to listen to anything supreme court says. They could technically just give them the finger. Once democrats pack the court, a future republican would either be like "ok so we are adding 100" or just ignore the thing entirely. Both outcomes are great. The way our government uses the supreme court to legislate is an abomination. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24198 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 22 2020 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't know what supreme court mythology you guys read but it was always political/partisan and far from an institution of decency. Maybe if you confine yourself to binary analysis. Luckily we can zoom in further. Supreme court has never been ideal, but the way it is used in the last 20 years is particularly awful. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9957 Posts
On September 21 2020 23:56 Biff The Understudy wrote: I mean the constitution was written with the idea that the US would avoid partisan politics, thought by Washington to be the worst thing for a democracy. Now that we are in an era of superpartisanship where half the country is ready to make stuff like wearing a mask during an epidemic a partisan issue, it seems that a lot of the institutions are simply not functioning. The Supreme Court being one of them. It's designed to be THE non partisan institution. That's the very reason Justices have their jobs for life. If the Republicans don't care about the spirit of the Constitutions and only see rules as an obstacle to overcome, I guess the whole Constitution is put in jeopardy. But anyway, I don't think it's wise for Biden to add X (liberal) justices to the Supreme Court. You can be certain that the Republicans will add ten more, young, ultraconservative Justices the next time they are in power if we go down that road. Anyhow. I said when some of our friends screamed that Clinton would be just as terrible as Trump that beside the fact that it was a ridiculous assumption, the SC picks only should make anyone left minded fucking hope she won. You can kiss goodbye to the healthcare of dozens of millions of people, of the reproductive rights of american women and so on and so forth. Not that said friends care about any of that anyway. I will ready some bitter popcorns for when a real progressive wins and can't do shit because every policy he or she tries to implement is struck down by an ultraconservative SC. You do realize your attitude is bullshit right? You think leftists should vote for someone who fundamentally disagrees with the very foundation of leftist ideology because she might have thrown them a bone and allowed her liberal friends on the SC to continue promoting the exact same system that leftists are fighting against? Leftism and liberalism are fundamentally at odds. Leftists don't support the exact same system as Trump, liberals do. We're talking about the system that creates the problems you are saying the SC would fix by putting more of the same people on it. The idea that liberals in America are the moderate left is ridiculous. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On September 22 2020 01:11 Mohdoo wrote: Maybe if you confine yourself to binary analysis. Luckily we can zoom in further. Supreme court has never been ideal, but the way it is used in the last 20 years is particularly awful. This view seems very much off-base. Many of the historically worst decisions made by the Supreme Court, largely with political motivation, didn't happen in the last 20 years but within the 200 years preceding. The only way the last 20 years could seem anomalously bad is with a remarkable lack of perspective. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 21 2020 09:55 Doodsmack wrote: Well, the collusion investigation might be seen as karmic comeuppance for birtherism. Especially when you view it in terms of "Obama vs Trump." The difference is that Obama didn't actually do anything wrong whereas Trump himself is incredibly dodgy and surrounded himself with incredibly dodgy people and the Russians actually did interfere in the election (just not with Trump cooperating with them). That's not remotely comparable to Obama existing being the basis for an explicitly racist conspiracy that suggested the first Black president wasn't even an American citizen. Oh yeah, and the guy who actually started the conspiracy is Obama's successor. That's the exact opposite of karmic balancing. That's 100% reward for doing something scummy. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 22 2020 01:23 LegalLord wrote: This view seems very much off-base. Many of the historically worst decisions made by the Supreme Court, largely with political motivation, didn't happen in the last 20 years but within the 200 years preceding. The only way the last 20 years could seem anomalously bad is with a remarkable lack of perspective. Maybe I'm just totally ignorant. But from what I am seeing, gay marriage, daca, obamacare...etc...it is a trainwreck for this to be a supreme court thing. It feels like these are issues it is important for us to be legislating, not deferring to courts. That is what I am saying is bad. Has that been equally bad throughout history? My impression was that we used to be more willing to legislate and that this realization of "if we never actually do anything, we can't be criticized for anything we do" was a recent thing. But if not, never mind. Regardless, it is stupid and should be shot in the head, regardless of how long it has been going on. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 22 2020 01:31 Mohdoo wrote: Maybe I'm just totally ignorant. But from what I am seeing, gay marriage, daca, obamacare...etc...it is a trainwreck for this to be a supreme court thing. It feels like these are issues it is important for us to be legislating, not deferring to courts. That is what I am saying is bad. Has that been equally bad throughout history? My impression was that we used to be more willing to legislate and that this realization of "if we never actually do anything, we can't be criticized for anything we do" was a recent thing. But if not, never mind. Regardless, it is stupid and should be shot in the head, regardless of how long it has been going on. This is a direct result of the filibuster reform. It used to be possible to do without a super majority, now it requires one. The SC did some other things like it throughout history but they're notably really bad for the most part (Plessy V Ferguson). | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 22 2020 01:38 Nevuk wrote: This is a direct result of the filibuster reform. It used to be possible to do without a super majority, now it requires one. The SC did some other things like it throughout history but they're notably really bad for the most part (Plessy V Ferguson). Can you clarify this? Are you saying we used to be able to legislate, but now we can't? My understanding is that the failure to legislate is a function of the unsavory aspects of elections, the idea that someone who does something ends up being judged worse than someone who just sits on the sidelines criticizing. When you write legislation, it always has pros and cons. voters don't care about pros, just cons. That is why there is still not even a hint of willingness for republicans to fix healthcare. They would deeply suffer if they tried to fix healthcare. Because of that, they just throw everything at the supreme court and then try to do anything they can to have power in the court. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 22 2020 01:43 Mohdoo wrote: Can you clarify this? Are you saying we used to be able to legislate, but now we can't? My understanding is that the failure to legislate is a function of the unsavory aspects of elections, the idea that someone who does something ends up being judged worse than someone who just sits on the sidelines criticizing. When you write legislation, it always has pros and cons. voters don't care about pros, just cons. That is why there is still not even a hint of willingness for republicans to fix healthcare. They would deeply suffer if they tried to fix healthcare. Because of that, they just throw everything at the supreme court and then try to do anything they can to have power in the court. Controsversial legislation used to be able to pass with 50 or 51 votes, now it takes 60. So anything controversial dies, for better or worse. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22490 Posts
On September 22 2020 01:43 Mohdoo wrote: Previously a filibuster required effort, you had to actually stand there and talk. So they were used sparingly. Now that you don't have to stand there and talk and merely intent is enough you can filibuster anything and everything you want, requiring a super majority to get pretty much anything doneCan you clarify this? Are you saying we used to be able to legislate, but now we can't? My understanding is that the failure to legislate is a function of the unsavory aspects of elections, the idea that someone who does something ends up being judged worse than someone who just sits on the sidelines criticizing. When you write legislation, it always has pros and cons. voters don't care about pros, just cons. That is why there is still not even a hint of willingness for republicans to fix healthcare. They would deeply suffer if they tried to fix healthcare. Because of that, they just throw everything at the supreme court and then try to do anything they can to have power in the court. | ||
| ||
