|
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 October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change.
I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side.
|
United States10402 Posts
On October 28 2020 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 02:08 Simberto wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. That sounds highly unlikely. Even if they lose, they will just sit around on a supreme court majority, use that to wreck a few freedoms for women and LGBT people, complain a lot about everything, obstruct whatever they can however they can, get elected again because nothing happens because they block everything, give lots of welfare money to the richest of the rich, and then we are here again. The Supreme Court lacks effective authority. Following rulings by the Supreme Court is only a matter of tradition, they have no actual power. The senate could pass laws directly contradicting the Supreme Court and it would have no mechanism of invalidating them. Just give the entire institution the finger and move on.
Not sure if doing his is smart politically. Imagine the headlines of the Senate members openly ignoring the Supreme Court orders, only to get dragged back to the Courts and have them say the same thing: you listen to us. Trump and the Republican administration has already tried this many times that it's actually gotten kinda sad when you get linked a post saying the same thing: X Court orders Republican officials to follow their holding.
Also, ignoring the Supreme Court would cause the end of the judiciary as we know it. We designed the 3 branch system for a purpose, I don't think it is wise to suddenly start to ignore one of those branches simply because you disagree. You can amend and change the laws that the Supreme Court rules against you, but you can't just openly ignore the holding.
|
Bisutopia19351 Posts
On October 28 2020 03:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. Ironically I think voting Democrat is the best way to bring fiscal conservatism back into the political dialogue. Republicans in office borrow and spend with the approval of Democrats. Democrats in office borrow and spend with the opposition of Republicans. That said, the cynic in me thinks Democrats should just stop taxing everyone under $100k in a new tax plan. They seem fine with the ultra rich hoarding all the income so they might as well narrow taxes to just target them if they’re willing to accept that degree of inequality. And the Republicans just got away with paying for another massive tax cut (after the Bush 2 ones) with borrowing without any kind of political repercussions. If the rules don’t matter and you can just do whatever the fuck you like then they should just commit to nobody paying taxes. If populism is the game then play it to win.
I agree. Every time I see Federal Republicans spend the way they do, I'm just like "How is this conservatism again." I want a party that will focus on paying down the national debt and stop spending (sans Natural Disasters and Diseases).
On October 28 2020 03:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:
As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. I'm with you on the disappointment regarding fiscal conservatism. It's just way too dead currently. The reasons for this are many, but we shouldn't get into it unless you're interested. The big problem with universal party primary voting is strategic voting. Almost every single time, the incumbent politician will win his/her primary. The voters of that party are incredibly incentivized to vote in the opposing party's primary to choose an easier opponent for their preferred candidate. That's a very obvious force to nominate the more "extreme" opponent, to almost guarantee your incumbent an easier fight. Such a case easily trouncing the minority that want to have a partial win no matter who is elected. (California is even worse: Democrats strategically vote for Republicans, because only the top-2 primary winners go to the ballot. Democrat + Republican on statewide office = Democrat always wins. Democrat + Democrat on statewide office = The Democrat with the early lead can lose.)
I totally get that argument. And it's one that I held for a while regarding just voting on weaker opponents. But given this and the last election (and some older ones), I'm willing to accept that risk. Especially when it's easy to change an amendment here in Florida if we find that it is to a detriment of both parties.
|
United States10402 Posts
On October 28 2020 03:33 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:23 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. Ironically I think voting Democrat is the best way to bring fiscal conservatism back into the political dialogue. Republicans in office borrow and spend with the approval of Democrats. Democrats in office borrow and spend with the opposition of Republicans. That said, the cynic in me thinks Democrats should just stop taxing everyone under $100k in a new tax plan. They seem fine with the ultra rich hoarding all the income so they might as well narrow taxes to just target them if they’re willing to accept that degree of inequality. And the Republicans just got away with paying for another massive tax cut (after the Bush 2 ones) with borrowing without any kind of political repercussions. If the rules don’t matter and you can just do whatever the fuck you like then they should just commit to nobody paying taxes. If populism is the game then play it to win. I agree. Every time I see Federal Republicans spend the way they do, I'm just like "How is this conservatism again." I want a party that will focus on paying down the national debt and stop spending (sans Natural Disasters and Diseases). Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:25 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:
As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. I'm with you on the disappointment regarding fiscal conservatism. It's just way too dead currently. The reasons for this are many, but we shouldn't get into it unless you're interested. The big problem with universal party primary voting is strategic voting. Almost every single time, the incumbent politician will win his/her primary. The voters of that party are incredibly incentivized to vote in the opposing party's primary to choose an easier opponent for their preferred candidate. That's a very obvious force to nominate the more "extreme" opponent, to almost guarantee your incumbent an easier fight. Such a case easily trouncing the minority that want to have a partial win no matter who is elected. (California is even worse: Democrats strategically vote for Republicans, because only the top-2 primary winners go to the ballot. Democrat + Republican on statewide office = Democrat always wins. Democrat + Democrat on statewide office = The Democrat with the early lead can lose.) I totally get that argument. And it's one that I held for a while regarding just voting on weaker opponents. But given this and the last election (and some older ones), I'm willing to accept that risk. Especially when it's easy to change an amendment here in Florida if we find that it is to a detriment of both parties.
I just think we should go to ranked voting everywhere and see what happens if the experiment would work. I would love to be able to start voting 3rd party first then major party second so that my vote still isnt "wasted"
|
On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side.
I'd agree that "education" is rather meaningless on its own. When I use it I mean specifically Freirean Critical Pedagogy.
|
On October 28 2020 03:32 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 28 2020 02:08 Simberto wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. That sounds highly unlikely. Even if they lose, they will just sit around on a supreme court majority, use that to wreck a few freedoms for women and LGBT people, complain a lot about everything, obstruct whatever they can however they can, get elected again because nothing happens because they block everything, give lots of welfare money to the richest of the rich, and then we are here again. The Supreme Court lacks effective authority. Following rulings by the Supreme Court is only a matter of tradition, they have no actual power. The senate could pass laws directly contradicting the Supreme Court and it would have no mechanism of invalidating them. Just give the entire institution the finger and move on. Not sure if doing his is smart politically. Imagine the headlines of the Senate members openly ignoring the Supreme Court orders, only to get dragged back to the Courts and have them say the same thing: you listen to us. Trump and the Republican administration has already tried this many times that it's actually gotten kinda sad when you get linked a post saying the same thing: X Court orders Republican officials to follow their holding.
It's not the senate that would be ignoring them, it would be the executive. The courts can start holding people in contempt, but it's the executive that has to agree to throw them and hold them in jail.
Also, the GOP has literally had people serving as acting directors illegally for over a year and the court literally can do nothing, even after pointing it out.
Late last month, Brian Morris of the United States District Court for the District of Montana, who was appointed under the Obama administration, found that Mr. Pendley had served unlawfully for 424 days as acting director of the bureau. [of land management]
Guess what? He's still doing it. Just pass a law, and if the SC declares it illegal, ignore it would be the equivalent strategy. There's nothing in the constitution that says that the SC can declare a law unconstitutional, btw. That's a SC invented thing : once they abuse the privilege too badly, they will lose it.
Also, ignoring the Supreme Court would cause the end of the judiciary as we know it. We designed the 3 branch system for a purpose, I don't think it is wise to suddenly start to ignore one of those branches simply because you disagree. You can amend and change the laws that the Supreme Court rules against you, but you can't just openly ignore the holding.
It's been done in the past. Most notably by Andrew Jackson. It only works with a very unpopular court decision.
This is why it was such a bad idea to violate norms so badly on the court to specifically ram through people with extremely outside of the mainstream opinions. Once its popularity dips towards where congress' is, the SC is literally powerless. They can't enforce any of their decisions. Congress controls funding and does have a police force to enforce their contempt orders (though no jail currently, it is something they can do). The supreme court does not. That's the balance of power against them.
|
United States10402 Posts
On October 28 2020 03:43 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:32 FlaShFTW wrote:On October 28 2020 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 28 2020 02:08 Simberto wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. That sounds highly unlikely. Even if they lose, they will just sit around on a supreme court majority, use that to wreck a few freedoms for women and LGBT people, complain a lot about everything, obstruct whatever they can however they can, get elected again because nothing happens because they block everything, give lots of welfare money to the richest of the rich, and then we are here again. The Supreme Court lacks effective authority. Following rulings by the Supreme Court is only a matter of tradition, they have no actual power. The senate could pass laws directly contradicting the Supreme Court and it would have no mechanism of invalidating them. Just give the entire institution the finger and move on. Not sure if doing his is smart politically. Imagine the headlines of the Senate members openly ignoring the Supreme Court orders, only to get dragged back to the Courts and have them say the same thing: you listen to us. Trump and the Republican administration has already tried this many times that it's actually gotten kinda sad when you get linked a post saying the same thing: X Court orders Republican officials to follow their holding. It's not the senate that would be ignoring them, it would be the executive. The courts can start holding people in contempt, but it's the executive that has to agree to throw them and hold them in jail. Also, the GOP has literally had people serving as acting directors for over a year and the court literally can do nothing, even after pointing it out. Show nested quote +
Late last month, Brian Morris of the United States District Court for the District of Montana, who was appointed under the Obama administration, found that Mr. Pendley had served unlawfully for 424 days as acting director of the bureau. [of land management]
Guess what? He's still doing it. Show nested quote +
Also, ignoring the Supreme Court would cause the end of the judiciary as we know it. We designed the 3 branch system for a purpose, I don't think it is wise to suddenly start to ignore one of those branches simply because you disagree. You can amend and change the laws that the Supreme Court rules against you, but you can't just openly ignore the holding.
It's been done in the past. Most notably by Andrew Jackson. It only works with a very unpopular court decision. This is why it was such a bad idea to violate norms so badly on the court to specifically ram through people with extremely outside of the mainstream opinions. Once its popularity dips towards where congress' is, the SC is literally powerless. They can't enforce any of their decisions. Congress controls funding and does have a police force to enforce their contempt orders (though no jail currently, it is something they can do). The supreme court does not. That's the balance of power against them.
So do you envision at time where the Court now inevitably strikes down things like Obamacare or abortion rights and for people to ignore those court orders? It seems like that is something you might be implying here especially with how "unpopular" these holdings might be received.
|
On October 28 2020 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I'd agree that "education" is rather meaningless on its own. When I use it I mean specifically Freirean Critical Pedagogy.
Reading up on it now... it sounds like what Republicans are often railing against as liberal brainwashing in college campuses?
|
On October 28 2020 03:45 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:43 Nevuk wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 FlaShFTW wrote:On October 28 2020 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 28 2020 02:08 Simberto wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. That sounds highly unlikely. Even if they lose, they will just sit around on a supreme court majority, use that to wreck a few freedoms for women and LGBT people, complain a lot about everything, obstruct whatever they can however they can, get elected again because nothing happens because they block everything, give lots of welfare money to the richest of the rich, and then we are here again. The Supreme Court lacks effective authority. Following rulings by the Supreme Court is only a matter of tradition, they have no actual power. The senate could pass laws directly contradicting the Supreme Court and it would have no mechanism of invalidating them. Just give the entire institution the finger and move on. Not sure if doing his is smart politically. Imagine the headlines of the Senate members openly ignoring the Supreme Court orders, only to get dragged back to the Courts and have them say the same thing: you listen to us. Trump and the Republican administration has already tried this many times that it's actually gotten kinda sad when you get linked a post saying the same thing: X Court orders Republican officials to follow their holding. It's not the senate that would be ignoring them, it would be the executive. The courts can start holding people in contempt, but it's the executive that has to agree to throw them and hold them in jail. Also, the GOP has literally had people serving as acting directors for over a year and the court literally can do nothing, even after pointing it out.
Late last month, Brian Morris of the United States District Court for the District of Montana, who was appointed under the Obama administration, found that Mr. Pendley had served unlawfully for 424 days as acting director of the bureau. [of land management]
Guess what? He's still doing it.
Also, ignoring the Supreme Court would cause the end of the judiciary as we know it. We designed the 3 branch system for a purpose, I don't think it is wise to suddenly start to ignore one of those branches simply because you disagree. You can amend and change the laws that the Supreme Court rules against you, but you can't just openly ignore the holding.
It's been done in the past. Most notably by Andrew Jackson. It only works with a very unpopular court decision. This is why it was such a bad idea to violate norms so badly on the court to specifically ram through people with extremely outside of the mainstream opinions. Once its popularity dips towards where congress' is, the SC is literally powerless. They can't enforce any of their decisions. Congress controls funding and does have a police force to enforce their contempt orders (though no jail currently, it is something they can do). The supreme court does not. That's the balance of power against them. So do you envision at time where the Court now inevitably strikes down things like Obamacare or abortion rights and for people to ignore those court orders? It seems like that is something you might be implying here especially with how "unpopular" these holdings might be received.
Yep. I think that is exactly what will happen if they go too extreme on it.
What will probably happen is that they will continuously curtail the rights but not overturn them on abortion. This will preserve the status quo of it being effectively illegal in red states, with some having only 1 clinic for hundreds of miles.
They'll also chip away at secular rights, and lgbt anti-discrimination laws.
Some things that I don't think would be obeyed:
Overturn Obergefell (ie, end gay marriage) - if there's a trifecta, I think it might just get immediately passed by congress + biden. If no trifecta? Being against gay marriage right now is a very extreme position. If Biden wins, I doubt he'd send the military in to stop states that said they recognized gay marriage from having weddings.
Healthcare - If they fully overturned Obamacare in the middle of an epidemic, without a replacement, full stop, I do not believe blue states or Biden would follow the directive. I'm not even sure red states would follow.
I don't THINK they're that stupid, but I don't know how ACB's mind works on those issues, and at least three of the other 9 are definitely willing to do that.
Here's a big one :
Thomas has signaled an intent to do away with the principle that lets Executive Orders modify previous Executive Orders. This is how they're planning on preventing Biden from undoing the worst damages of the Trump presidency. I need to find the exact name (it came up in a situation titled "Thomas, disagreeing with Thomas, cites Thomas" in some newspapers). It's wonky enough that they may try it and may get away with it, but I'm not sure.
|
On October 28 2020 03:39 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:33 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 03:23 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. Ironically I think voting Democrat is the best way to bring fiscal conservatism back into the political dialogue. Republicans in office borrow and spend with the approval of Democrats. Democrats in office borrow and spend with the opposition of Republicans. That said, the cynic in me thinks Democrats should just stop taxing everyone under $100k in a new tax plan. They seem fine with the ultra rich hoarding all the income so they might as well narrow taxes to just target them if they’re willing to accept that degree of inequality. And the Republicans just got away with paying for another massive tax cut (after the Bush 2 ones) with borrowing without any kind of political repercussions. If the rules don’t matter and you can just do whatever the fuck you like then they should just commit to nobody paying taxes. If populism is the game then play it to win. I agree. Every time I see Federal Republicans spend the way they do, I'm just like "How is this conservatism again." I want a party that will focus on paying down the national debt and stop spending (sans Natural Disasters and Diseases). On October 28 2020 03:25 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:
As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. I'm with you on the disappointment regarding fiscal conservatism. It's just way too dead currently. The reasons for this are many, but we shouldn't get into it unless you're interested. The big problem with universal party primary voting is strategic voting. Almost every single time, the incumbent politician will win his/her primary. The voters of that party are incredibly incentivized to vote in the opposing party's primary to choose an easier opponent for their preferred candidate. That's a very obvious force to nominate the more "extreme" opponent, to almost guarantee your incumbent an easier fight. Such a case easily trouncing the minority that want to have a partial win no matter who is elected. (California is even worse: Democrats strategically vote for Republicans, because only the top-2 primary winners go to the ballot. Democrat + Republican on statewide office = Democrat always wins. Democrat + Democrat on statewide office = The Democrat with the early lead can lose.) I totally get that argument. And it's one that I held for a while regarding just voting on weaker opponents. But given this and the last election (and some older ones), I'm willing to accept that risk. Especially when it's easy to change an amendment here in Florida if we find that it is to a detriment of both parties. I just think we should go to ranked voting everywhere and see what happens if the experiment would work. I would love to be able to start voting 3rd party first then major party second so that my vote still isnt "wasted"
Ranked voting is one of my favorite proposals moving forward, it's an elegantly simple way to change things and the downsides are much less than with other proposals like term limits.
|
Bisutopia19351 Posts
On October 28 2020 03:56 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:39 FlaShFTW wrote:On October 28 2020 03:33 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 03:23 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. Ironically I think voting Democrat is the best way to bring fiscal conservatism back into the political dialogue. Republicans in office borrow and spend with the approval of Democrats. Democrats in office borrow and spend with the opposition of Republicans. That said, the cynic in me thinks Democrats should just stop taxing everyone under $100k in a new tax plan. They seem fine with the ultra rich hoarding all the income so they might as well narrow taxes to just target them if they’re willing to accept that degree of inequality. And the Republicans just got away with paying for another massive tax cut (after the Bush 2 ones) with borrowing without any kind of political repercussions. If the rules don’t matter and you can just do whatever the fuck you like then they should just commit to nobody paying taxes. If populism is the game then play it to win. I agree. Every time I see Federal Republicans spend the way they do, I'm just like "How is this conservatism again." I want a party that will focus on paying down the national debt and stop spending (sans Natural Disasters and Diseases). On October 28 2020 03:25 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:
As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. I'm with you on the disappointment regarding fiscal conservatism. It's just way too dead currently. The reasons for this are many, but we shouldn't get into it unless you're interested. The big problem with universal party primary voting is strategic voting. Almost every single time, the incumbent politician will win his/her primary. The voters of that party are incredibly incentivized to vote in the opposing party's primary to choose an easier opponent for their preferred candidate. That's a very obvious force to nominate the more "extreme" opponent, to almost guarantee your incumbent an easier fight. Such a case easily trouncing the minority that want to have a partial win no matter who is elected. (California is even worse: Democrats strategically vote for Republicans, because only the top-2 primary winners go to the ballot. Democrat + Republican on statewide office = Democrat always wins. Democrat + Democrat on statewide office = The Democrat with the early lead can lose.) I totally get that argument. And it's one that I held for a while regarding just voting on weaker opponents. But given this and the last election (and some older ones), I'm willing to accept that risk. Especially when it's easy to change an amendment here in Florida if we find that it is to a detriment of both parties. I just think we should go to ranked voting everywhere and see what happens if the experiment would work. I would love to be able to start voting 3rd party first then major party second so that my vote still isnt "wasted" Ranked voting is one of my favorite proposals moving forward, it's an elegantly simple way to change things and the downsides are much less than with other proposals like term limits.
Any suggestions on where to read up on ranked voting?
|
On October 28 2020 03:32 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 02:58 Mohdoo wrote:On October 28 2020 02:08 Simberto wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. That sounds highly unlikely. Even if they lose, they will just sit around on a supreme court majority, use that to wreck a few freedoms for women and LGBT people, complain a lot about everything, obstruct whatever they can however they can, get elected again because nothing happens because they block everything, give lots of welfare money to the richest of the rich, and then we are here again. The Supreme Court lacks effective authority. Following rulings by the Supreme Court is only a matter of tradition, they have no actual power. The senate could pass laws directly contradicting the Supreme Court and it would have no mechanism of invalidating them. Just give the entire institution the finger and move on. Not sure if doing his is smart politically. Imagine the headlines of the Senate members openly ignoring the Supreme Court orders, only to get dragged back to the Courts and have them say the same thing: you listen to us. Trump and the Republican administration has already tried this many times that it's actually gotten kinda sad when you get linked a post saying the same thing: X Court orders Republican officials to follow their holding. Also, ignoring the Supreme Court would cause the end of the judiciary as we know it. We designed the 3 branch system for a purpose, I don't think it is wise to suddenly start to ignore one of those branches simply because you disagree. You can amend and change the laws that the Supreme Court rules against you, but you can't just openly ignore the holding.
We designed a lot of things 100+ years ago that have been shown to be complete garbage. Compare the technology of the first light bulb to modern technologies. We learn, grow and make better things as time goes on. The age of a rule is a con, not a pro. If it is a good system, it will be shown to be a good system. Women used to be property. Homosexuality was a mental illness. We were wrong so many times that I can't imagine myself accepting an appeal to tradition in any form. The supreme court being a shitty game of capture the flag is an embarrassment. It was a very poorly designed system and our current situation of capture the flag proves it. It is on you to show why it is a good system in spite everything that has happened. We are living through an example of it showing major flaws.
|
On October 28 2020 03:59 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:56 farvacola wrote:On October 28 2020 03:39 FlaShFTW wrote:On October 28 2020 03:33 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 03:23 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. Ironically I think voting Democrat is the best way to bring fiscal conservatism back into the political dialogue. Republicans in office borrow and spend with the approval of Democrats. Democrats in office borrow and spend with the opposition of Republicans. That said, the cynic in me thinks Democrats should just stop taxing everyone under $100k in a new tax plan. They seem fine with the ultra rich hoarding all the income so they might as well narrow taxes to just target them if they’re willing to accept that degree of inequality. And the Republicans just got away with paying for another massive tax cut (after the Bush 2 ones) with borrowing without any kind of political repercussions. If the rules don’t matter and you can just do whatever the fuck you like then they should just commit to nobody paying taxes. If populism is the game then play it to win. I agree. Every time I see Federal Republicans spend the way they do, I'm just like "How is this conservatism again." I want a party that will focus on paying down the national debt and stop spending (sans Natural Disasters and Diseases). On October 28 2020 03:25 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:
As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. I'm with you on the disappointment regarding fiscal conservatism. It's just way too dead currently. The reasons for this are many, but we shouldn't get into it unless you're interested. The big problem with universal party primary voting is strategic voting. Almost every single time, the incumbent politician will win his/her primary. The voters of that party are incredibly incentivized to vote in the opposing party's primary to choose an easier opponent for their preferred candidate. That's a very obvious force to nominate the more "extreme" opponent, to almost guarantee your incumbent an easier fight. Such a case easily trouncing the minority that want to have a partial win no matter who is elected. (California is even worse: Democrats strategically vote for Republicans, because only the top-2 primary winners go to the ballot. Democrat + Republican on statewide office = Democrat always wins. Democrat + Democrat on statewide office = The Democrat with the early lead can lose.) I totally get that argument. And it's one that I held for a while regarding just voting on weaker opponents. But given this and the last election (and some older ones), I'm willing to accept that risk. Especially when it's easy to change an amendment here in Florida if we find that it is to a detriment of both parties. I just think we should go to ranked voting everywhere and see what happens if the experiment would work. I would love to be able to start voting 3rd party first then major party second so that my vote still isnt "wasted" Ranked voting is one of my favorite proposals moving forward, it's an elegantly simple way to change things and the downsides are much less than with other proposals like term limits. Any suggestions on where to read up on ranked voting?
FairVote is the leading ranked choice lobbyist in the US, they've had success in getting it implemented in localities and in Maine iirc. www.fairvote.org is probably the best place to start, though it's certainly not neutral in its presentation.
|
On October 28 2020 03:55 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I'd agree that "education" is rather meaningless on its own. When I use it I mean specifically Freirean Critical Pedagogy. Reading up on it now... it sounds like what Republicans are often railing against as liberal brainwashing in college campuses?
More or less. His ideas have been pretty effectively bastardized in the US education system though. It's a bigger issue in Brazil. Trump of the tropics (aka Bolsonaro) actually campaigned on taking a flamethrower to the ministry of education to burn down his works and influence in education.
|
United States10402 Posts
On October 28 2020 03:59 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:56 farvacola wrote:On October 28 2020 03:39 FlaShFTW wrote:On October 28 2020 03:33 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 03:23 KwarK wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 28 2020 01:30 KwarK wrote:
Hopefully the Republicans will learn they shouldn’t run a candidate who has already been impeached for abusing the office for political gain. As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. Ironically I think voting Democrat is the best way to bring fiscal conservatism back into the political dialogue. Republicans in office borrow and spend with the approval of Democrats. Democrats in office borrow and spend with the opposition of Republicans. That said, the cynic in me thinks Democrats should just stop taxing everyone under $100k in a new tax plan. They seem fine with the ultra rich hoarding all the income so they might as well narrow taxes to just target them if they’re willing to accept that degree of inequality. And the Republicans just got away with paying for another massive tax cut (after the Bush 2 ones) with borrowing without any kind of political repercussions. If the rules don’t matter and you can just do whatever the fuck you like then they should just commit to nobody paying taxes. If populism is the game then play it to win. I agree. Every time I see Federal Republicans spend the way they do, I'm just like "How is this conservatism again." I want a party that will focus on paying down the national debt and stop spending (sans Natural Disasters and Diseases). On October 28 2020 03:25 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 03:13 BisuDagger wrote:
As a fiscal conservative, I was extremely disappointed with Trump as leader of the party. That being said, I think the Democrats keep fielding too many candidates that talk about solving all our problems with heavy tax systems and massive federal government programs, so it's not like I can even vote for a moderate democrat to lead us through the next four years. I actually voted for a Florida Amendment that would allow everyone to vote in party primaries. My hope is that maybe having democrats be like "Let's all vote for x republican because at least he's not insane and would represent my views well" would help the party have a better representative. And vice versa, I would totally vote in a Democratic primary with the hopes of finding a candidate that will at least take my views into consideration. I'm with you on the disappointment regarding fiscal conservatism. It's just way too dead currently. The reasons for this are many, but we shouldn't get into it unless you're interested. The big problem with universal party primary voting is strategic voting. Almost every single time, the incumbent politician will win his/her primary. The voters of that party are incredibly incentivized to vote in the opposing party's primary to choose an easier opponent for their preferred candidate. That's a very obvious force to nominate the more "extreme" opponent, to almost guarantee your incumbent an easier fight. Such a case easily trouncing the minority that want to have a partial win no matter who is elected. (California is even worse: Democrats strategically vote for Republicans, because only the top-2 primary winners go to the ballot. Democrat + Republican on statewide office = Democrat always wins. Democrat + Democrat on statewide office = The Democrat with the early lead can lose.) I totally get that argument. And it's one that I held for a while regarding just voting on weaker opponents. But given this and the last election (and some older ones), I'm willing to accept that risk. Especially when it's easy to change an amendment here in Florida if we find that it is to a detriment of both parties. I just think we should go to ranked voting everywhere and see what happens if the experiment would work. I would love to be able to start voting 3rd party first then major party second so that my vote still isnt "wasted" Ranked voting is one of my favorite proposals moving forward, it's an elegantly simple way to change things and the downsides are much less than with other proposals like term limits. Any suggestions on where to read up on ranked voting?
https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)
Basically, let's say libertarians who normally just vote Republican in elections now get a chance to vote Libertarian. If the voting break down goes something like 45 Dem, 45 Rep, and 10 Lib, and every lib voter had Rep as a 2nd choice, then the final result is actually 45 Dem, 55 Rep and the Rep wins the seat.
For a better example of how they might actually impact elections strongly, think the 2016 elections. With states as close like Michigan, it was a separation of 10k votes but over 250k votes that went to 3rd party (170k to Johnson, 50k to Stein, 50k to others). In this situation, even if Trump has more votes than Clinton, if there were more voters who chose Clinton as a 2nd choice over Trump, then Clinton would have eventually won the vote since she would've crossed the 50+1 threshold after all the 3rd party votes went back into the top 2.
The pros is obvious, you can now vote for a 3rd party but have your vote counted to the 2 major parties (assuming the two major parties are still the highest vote getters). What it encourages is more 3rd party voting for candidates that actually fill your political affiliation the closest. This is why in many European countries, there exists a bunch of different parties. In an ideal world, what would occur would be a split of both Republican and Democrat parties into Social Democrats, Traditional Democrats, Conservatives, and whatever the Trump Republicans are today. Then you have the inclusion of the libertarians, random green parties.
|
On October 28 2020 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 03:55 Starlightsun wrote:On October 28 2020 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I'd agree that "education" is rather meaningless on its own. When I use it I mean specifically Freirean Critical Pedagogy. Reading up on it now... it sounds like what Republicans are often railing against as liberal brainwashing in college campuses? More or less. His ideas have been pretty effectively bastardized in the US education system though. It's a bigger issue in Brazil. Trump of the tropics (aka Bolsonaro) actually campaigned on taking a flamethrower to the ministry of education to burn down his works and influence in education.
That's wild. He was elected with that platform?
|
|
|
On October 28 2020 04:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 04:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 03:55 Starlightsun wrote:On October 28 2020 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I'd agree that "education" is rather meaningless on its own. When I use it I mean specifically Freirean Critical Pedagogy. Reading up on it now... it sounds like what Republicans are often railing against as liberal brainwashing in college campuses? More or less. His ideas have been pretty effectively bastardized in the US education system though. It's a bigger issue in Brazil. Trump of the tropics (aka Bolsonaro) actually campaigned on taking a flamethrower to the ministry of education to burn down his works and influence in education. That's wild. He was elected with that platform?
It was worse really + Show Spoiler +Jair Bolsonaro, who was elected President of Brazil on promises to end crime, right the economy, and “make Brazil great,” has spent his career gleefully offending women, black people, environmentalists, and gays. “I would be incapable of loving a homosexual son,” he has said. “I would prefer that my son die in an accident than show up with some guy with a mustache.” As a national legislator, he declared one political rival, Maria do Rosário, “not worth raping.” Immigrants are “scum.” The United Nations is “a bunch of communists.” He supports the torture of drug dealers, the use of firing squads, and the empowerment of a hyper-aggressive police force. “A policeman who doesn’t kill,” he has said, “isn’t a policeman.” www.newyorker.com
There's also constant US interference in South American elections/politics in support of right wing demagogues.
|
|
|
On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys need to really define what you call a revolution very precisely or this will be another nonsense discussion.
I think it's quite clear the US would need another constitution and I think it's quite clear that it's unlikely to happen considering so many folks on the right think the constitution is basically a religious text. I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side.
I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state.
A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect.
That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff.
Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
