|
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 |
On September 22 2020 15:52 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 15:49 pmh wrote:
There are 3 different coalitions possible in a system with 3 parties devided 45-45-10
45A+10,45b+10 and 45+45. In every coalition the progressive voice would have little influence but it would have some influence.
Depending on how things go in society either of those coalitions would be possible and desireable for the long term stability of the nation. a 45-45 coalition is very likely because those 2 parties are closest to eachoter,but it would force compromise. It would force a compromise which 90% of the people could be more or less satisfied with. In the end it could even satisfy the 10% to some extend.
Contrary to the current system where halve of the people are not satisfied and where there is a very polarized society.
You never answered my question. How on earth are Bernie Bros going to form a coalition with Republicans? They have nearly nothing in common. All a 10% progressive party would do is caucus with the Democrats 100% so in reality it would be Democrats 55% Republicans 45% and Democrats would move more leftward. Your "solution" to lack of compromise or bipartisanship would only make things worse not better.
You would be surprised. In the netherlands we had a coalition called "purple" which was a coalition between our mainstream leftwing party, our mainstream rightwing party and a smaller more or less progressive (think high educated californian liberal who worries about climate change progressive) party.
(this at the cost of the christian party in the middle who traditionally always was part of the government). This coalition got quiet a few things done which where very good for the development of society,the christians in the middle held back on some developments for a long time based on their christian point of vieuw (like opening times for shops on sunday lgbt rights and certain medical research amongst other things).
Recently we had a coalition between the mainstream leftwing and the mainstream rightwing party alone without other partys (which was not a great succes btw but still).
I do realize the usa is different but i think even progressives and republicans can share a common agenda in certain aspects. For example in 2016 when hillary lost and the people pretty much wanted change no matter what. I can see the progressives wanting to form a coalition with the republicans rather then form a coalition with clinton. it would be a compromise and the progressives would have to compromise a lot more then the republicans (simply because they had a much smaller share of the votes) but it would still be a compromise that could in the end make more people happy with the political situation then now by giving the minority point of vieuw the opportunity to at least realize a small part of their agenda.
But yes the usa is different from europe and compromise has not been embedded in politics like it has in europe for the past few decades.
But ok,in an attempt to satisfy you lets add a libertarian party and make it 40-40-10-10. I am not hung up on making it all about the progressives. (though i am not sure there would be 10% support for a libertarian party while i am reasonably sure there could be 10% support for a progressive party).
This to force either the 40-40 coalition or a 40-10-10 coalition which needs compromise on many areas to make it work and which would lead to a government that a large part of the population could be satisfied with. This system would already be somewhat borderline though,i think you need more then 2 partys but not many more.
And if there is support for 45-45-10 and not enough libertarian support to make it 40-40-10-10 then so be it,thats how democracy works.
Right now the progressives and the democrats are not happy,and even if biden wins the progressives will still not be really happy (this thread and the discussion about blm has made that very clear) because biden wont be forced to compromise.
If the country is 45-45-10 (which i think it kinda is at this point),biden winning would satisfy 45% at best while a coalition with the progressives could potentially satisfy 55% which is still an improvement.
Or if biden wants to steer away from the progressives at all cost he could try force a coalition with the republicans instead and potentially satisfy 90%. It would mostly be a matter of ego,s and breaking down party lines to make the democrats compromise with the republicans because in the end their agendas are very much similar.
The mainstream democrats have more in common with the republicans then with the progressives i think.
but ok,the usa is very different from europe and while this has worked very well in europe and specially northern continental europe (germany,the netherlands,scandinavia) for the past few decades maybe such a system can never work in the usa because its a fundamentally different society. Still i think its worth considering to reduce the polarization.
|
On September 22 2020 16:03 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 15:52 Wegandi wrote:On September 22 2020 15:49 pmh wrote:
There are 3 different coalitions possible in a system with 3 parties devided 45-45-10
45A+10,45b+10 and 45+45. In every coalition the progressive voice would have little influence but it would have some influence.
Depending on how things go in society either of those coalitions would be possible and desireable for the long term stability of the nation. a 45-45 coalition is very likely because those 2 parties are closest to eachoter,but it would force compromise. It would force a compromise which 90% of the people could be more or less satisfied with. In the end it could even satisfy the 10% to some extend.
Contrary to the current system where halve of the people are not satisfied and where there is a very polarized society.
You never answered my question. How on earth are Bernie Bros going to form a coalition with Republicans? They have nearly nothing in common. All a 10% progressive party would do is caucus with the Democrats 100% so in reality it would be Democrats 55% Republicans 45% and Democrats would move more leftward. Your "solution" to lack of compromise or bipartisanship would only make things worse not better. You would be surprised. In the netherlands we had a coalition called "purple" which was a coalition between our mainstream leftwing party, our mainstream rightwing party and a smaller more or less progressive (think high educated californian liberal who worries about climate change progressive) party. (this at the cost of the christian party in the middle who traditionally always was part of the government). This coalition got quiet a few things done which where very good for the development of society,the christians in the middle held back on some developments for a long time based on their christian point of vieuw (like opening times for shops on sunday lgbt rights and certain medical research amongst other things). Recently we had a coalition between the mainstream leftwing and the mainstream rightwing party alone without other partys (which was not a great succes btw but still). I do realize the usa is different but i think even progressives and republicans can share a common agenda in certain aspects. For example in 2016 when hillary lost and the people pretty much wanted change no matter what. I can see the progressives wanting to form a coalition with the republicans rather then form a coalition with clinton. it would be a compromise and the progressives would have to compromise a lot more then the republicans (simply because they had a much smaller share of the votes) but it would still be a compromise that could in the end make more people happy with the political situation then now by giving the minority point of vieuw the opportunity to at least realize a small part of their agenda. But yes the usa is different from europe and compromise has not been embedded in politics like it has in europe for the past few decades. But ok,in an attempt to satisfy you lets add a libertarian party and make it 40-40-10-10. I am not hung up on making it all about the progressives. (though i am not sure there would be 10% support for a libertarian party while i am reasonably sure there could be 10% support for a progressive party). This to force either the 40-40 coalition or a 40-10-10 coalition which needs compromise on many areas to make it work and which would lead to a government that a large part of the population could be satisfied with. This system would already be somewhat borderline though,i think you need more then 2 partys but not many more. And if there is support for 45-45-10 and not enough libertarian support to make it 40-40-10-10 then so be it,thats how democracy works. Right now the progressives and the democrats are not happy,and even if biden wins the progressives will still not be really happy (this thread and the discussion about blm has made that very clear) because biden wont be forced to compromise. If the country is 45-45-10 (which i think it kinda is at this point),biden winning would satisfy 45% at best while a coalition with the progressives could potentially satisfy 55% which is still an improvement. Or if biden wants to steer away from the progressives at all cost he could try force a coalition with the republicans instead and potentially satisfy 90%. It would mostly be a matter of ego,s and breaking down party lines to make the democrats compromise with the republicans because in the end their agendas are very much similar. The mainstream democrats have more in common with the republicans then with the progressives i think. but ok,the usa is very different from europe and while this has worked very well in europe and specially northern continental europe (germany,the netherlands,scandinavia) for the past few decades maybe such a system can never work in the usa because its a fundamentally different society. Still i think its worth considering to reduce the polarization.
There are likely more libertarians in the US than progressives or at least libertarian leaning folks comparatively. I digress though. Look, I'm not against having more parties or having proportional voting systems (like say Maine), but it'll never happen because both parties actively work to exclude other parties from the ballot and from debates, never mind change the way voting works (yeah, good luck with that). Hell, the pollsters almost never include third party candidates and when they do (I think last one I saw Jo Jorgenson was at 5%) it's in like 2% of the polls and guess what polling is part requirement to get on the debate stage (and changes at whim so even if someone got close they'd raise the threshold). After Ross Perot they locked it down.
There are so many one party states (you have to remember in our federal system the states manage their own voting rules/affairs) that they'd never agree to such a system. Good luck with Hawaii, California, WA, OR, NY, NJ, CT, RI, etc. on the Dem side or AL, MS, ID, TN, OK, ND, MT, SC, etc. on the GOP side. Like can you imagine the furor if CA changed their voting system and progressives took a Senate seat and 15 House seats, or if NH changed theirs and Libertarians took a senate seat and 2 House seats? The major parties will never ever ever allow this. It's something you have to start with or else it's impossible.
PS: This is why you see a libertarian wing of the GOP and a progressive wing of the Dems. This is the best you're going to get unfortunately. (By the way if you thought they did Sanders dirty that was nothing compared to what they did to Ron Paul)
|
Right wing in Europe would be somewhere at the right of the Democratic Party. The GOP would align with the most extreme fringe far right parties. I would put Trump and his administration firmly at the right of Le Pen or Farage.
An alliance between fringe far right parties and left parties is unthinkable in Europe; so I don't think purple coalitions are a good analogy.
|
You are right about ron paul,he never had a chance either i wont deny that. (he had a few good points as well and personally i did quiet like what he had so say in general,even though at some points,mostly the monetary system, it was not realistic. but i guess the same could be said about sanders,not beeing realistic at some points. these points is where they would have to compromise on).
Its true that the natural course would be for the gop to align with the "far" right and the democrats with the "far" left but this would still force them to compromise and potentially satisfy a larger part of the population. (for example satisfy either the libertarians to some extend or satisfy the far left, now mostly represented by the blm movement,to some extend).
But if you look at it then the most reasonable (and imo also most desirable) coalition would be between the democrat and the republican establishment since in the end they pretty much share a common agenda.
The system could be volatile initially but a far right trump coalition would probably trigger a counter reaction in the next elections and the same would happen after a coalition between the democrats and the far left.
The most safe and stable coalition would be between the democrats and the republicans,it would be a coalition that a large part of the country could be satisfied with and i think eventually it would be the most atractive coalition for both the republican and the democratic establishment.
But yes i do realize this is pretty much a pipe dream which is probably not realistic for the usa.
Maybe the current system is the best we could get indeed and the polarization that comes with it is something that we simply have to accept.
But seeing how far the polarization has gone in recent years it is still worth to think about other options.
A bit of polarization isnt the end of the world,its inevitable in any system but when polarization gets to big it becomes a threat.
Maybe purple coalitions in the usa are impossible,it took decades in the netherlands before we had our first "purple" coalition.
But sometimes such a coalition could be desireable,for example when the traditional points of vieuw are in a deadlock about certain subjects which prevents much needed progress. A purple coalition could then force a breakthrough and make progress possible,comparable to how startups can create progress by disturbing the traditional market.
But yes all this is probably to idealistic and not realistic for the political system in the usa. Still its worth thinking about now that polarization has become so extreme.
|
Northern Ireland26798 Posts
On September 22 2020 21:45 pmh wrote:
You are right about ron paul,he never had a chance either i wont deny that. (he had a few good points as well and personally i did quiet like what he had so say in general,even though at some points,mostly the monetary system, it was not realistic. but i guess the same could be said about sanders,not beeing realistic at some points. these points is where they would have to compromise on).
Its true that the natural course would be for the gop to align with the "far" right and the democrats with the "far" left but this would still force them to compromise and potentially satisfy a larger part of the population. (for example satisfy either the libertarians to some extend or satisfy the far left, now mostly represented by the blm movement,to some extend).
But if you look at it then the most reasonable (and imo also most desirable) coalition would be between the democrat and the republican establishment since in the end they pretty much share a common agenda.
The system could be volatile initially but a far right trump coalition would probably trigger a counter reaction in the next elections and the same would happen after a coalition between the democrats and the far left.
The most safe and stable coalition would be between the democrats and the republicans,it would be a coalition that a large part of the country could be satisfied with and i think eventually it would be the most atractive coalition for both the republican and the democratic establishment.
But yes i do realize this is pretty much a pipe dream which is probably not realistic for the usa.
Maybe the current system is the best we could get indeed and the polarization that comes with it is something that we simply have to accept.
But seeing how far the polarization has gone in recent years it is still worth to think about other options.
A bit of polarization isnt the end of the world,its inevitable in any system but when polarization gets to big it becomes a threat.
Maybe purple coalitions in the usa are impossible,it took decades in the netherlands before we had our first "purple" coalition.
But sometimes such a coalition could be desireable,for example when the traditional points of vieuw are in a deadlock about certain subjects which prevents much needed progress. A purple coalition could then force a breakthrough and make progress possible,comparable to how startups can create progress by disturbing the traditional market.
But yes all this is probably to idealistic and not realistic for the political system in the usa. Still its worth thinking about now that polarization has become so extreme.
I mean in theory coalitions (in the US system) would be relatively fluid depending on the issue.
As to whether they are, well that’s another matter entirely. A hypothetical progressive caucus and a libertarian caucus would align on say, current policing issues or drug decriminalisation, if not much else.
I say in theory. I wouldn’t say an individual like Wegandi would be an example of the kind of person I’m talking about as he seems to be a flag waving libertarian, but from my experience a lot of ostensible libertarians are social conservatives who don’t like taxes.
So in that context there’s close to zero alignment with progressives.
As much as polarisation is a problem, party lines become a problem here too. If you had a situation where conservative/more liberal Republicans and the conservative/progressive Dem split were both able to represent the individuals who elected them and vote on that basis on individual issues as opposed to toeing the line there’d be a bit room for manoeuvre across the whole system.
|
Aren't the Democratic and Republican party basically already coalitions? Just preformed instead of negotiated after an election, because that doesn't work in a fptp system.
|
Northern Ireland26798 Posts
On September 22 2020 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:
Aren't the Democratic and Republican party basically already coalitions? Just preformed instead of negotiated after an election, because that doesn't work in a fptp system.
I mean they’re not exactly a million miles apart, but I mean coalitions don’t tend to block the other party with such gusto
|
Northern Ireland26798 Posts
It’s a big fear of most of us right-minded people that comes up a lot in discourse that Roe v Wade is perpetually in play.
There are smarter and more well-informed people here, what are the actual chances of an assault on it at a federal/SC level?
My instinct on it is that in certain localities sure, but that nationally it plays better to act like you want to. Not sure how that plays out if you have the actual tools to assault it and it becomes a reality, how popular would that be?
|
On September 22 2020 22:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:
Aren't the Democratic and Republican party basically already coalitions? Just preformed instead of negotiated after an election, because that doesn't work in a fptp system. I mean they’re not exactly a million miles apart, but I mean coalitions don’t tend to block the other party with such gusto Because in a proportional system you might be looking to work with them next election but that is not a consideration in the US because of the 2 party system.
|
Northern Ireland26798 Posts
On September 22 2020 22:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2020 22:32 WombaT wrote:On September 22 2020 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:
Aren't the Democratic and Republican party basically already coalitions? Just preformed instead of negotiated after an election, because that doesn't work in a fptp system. I mean they’re not exactly a million miles apart, but I mean coalitions don’t tend to block the other party with such gusto Because in a proportional system you might be looking to work with them next election but that is not a consideration in the US because of the 2 party system.
Oh get you there, just misread your post initially, apologies
|
Mitt Romney said he won't be stopping a vote on a justice.
Democrats aren't going to use a government shutdown, refuse to move the senate forward on unanimous consent (slows things considerably) or even hold a threat to stuff the court. Both sides are going to run on it and Trump will get the justice if he wants it regardless of who wins the election.
Some of the strategizing I'm hearing:
Republicans: Holding out the vote gives Trump post election veto power (which Biden is saying Trump should do if he loses but McConnell might not give him the chance).
Democrats: Desperately hoping Republicans don't confirm the judge before the election (which is really just up to McConnell waiting on how this impacts polling once the judge is nominated), after which they have no resolutions but waiting out the conservative majority and electing Democrats until they can replace the Republican majority (which will take several presidential elections)
|
I've read in a couple places that it will be really difficult for a vote to happen before the election due to how long the process takes.
I dont think I've seen Pelosi rule out impeachment either. Apparently impeachment proceedings would force the SC vote to wait until they're over?
Never heard of that one before but that would be an interesting series of events...
Also court packing seems to have a pretty strong voice at the moment.
|
The strategy is simple. If Trump loses, he challenges the results. The decision goes to the courts that he packed so they can give him the win. Thats why they need the seat filled so quickly.
|
I don't think it's a safe bet that SCOTUS will per se rule in Trump's favor were an election challenge to come before it, new justice seated or not.
|
On September 23 2020 00:46 farvacola wrote:
I don't think it's a safe bet that SCOTUS will per se rule in Trump's favor were an election challenge to come before it, new justice seated or not.
Gorsuch is a good example of this. If they give us another Gorsuch, I'm totally fine with it. Just not someone who fundamentally is clearly an awful person. Kavanaugh was just so revolting as an individual, it made the entire thing so much harder to swallow. Gorsuch seems to be an entirely respectable man.
|
At least 3 of the current justices would (Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito). Gorsuch and Roberts probably won't, but it's not a sure thing. I think Gorsuch is less likely than Roberts.
|
On September 23 2020 00:32 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
The strategy is simple. If Trump loses, he challenges the results. The decision goes to the courts that he packed so they can give him the win. Thats why they need the seat filled so quickly. If Trump has a strong case then yes this can happen. But SCJ are not stupid, they are not going to simply try to give Trump the Presidency just because he complained about losing with no actual solid legal foundation.
|
On September 23 2020 00:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2020 00:46 farvacola wrote:
I don't think it's a safe bet that SCOTUS will per se rule in Trump's favor were an election challenge to come before it, new justice seated or not. Gorsuch is a good example of this. If they give us another Gorsuch, I'm totally fine with it. Just not someone who fundamentally is clearly an awful person. Kavanaugh was just so revolting as an individual, it made the entire thing so much harder to swallow. Gorsuch seems to be an entirely respectable man.
The problem with this is what is a bad person? I don't want some Christian fundamentalist who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state on the court. I'm sure conservatives feel exactly opposite of that considering how often Danglar's posts about religious freedom.
|
If I were reading tea leaves, I'd guess ACB is less likely to rule in Trump's favor and Lagoa more likely. The former, though extremely Catholic, is very much a product of the decidedly old school 7th Circuit, whereas Lagoa has already signaled that she cares very little for stuff like conflicts of interest (her recusal choices relative to Florida's felon franchise disputes have been flatly awful).
Unfortunately, that's why I think Lagoa may have the better shot, she'll kiss the ring better than ACB and that's Trump's primary test for supporters.
|
The case in question will be Roe V Wade. Then the question becomes what if the foreseeable law of the land is outlawing abortion/restricting access with any additional leeway it provides them?
The lame duck cases they are scheduled to hear (the ACA individual mandate among them) may be unaffected by whether Republicans seat a justice or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
