|
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 |
Take a vote on statehood for puerto rico, like every other state joined the union. I think the corruption that led to aid sitting in warehouses while the population suffered from want after Hurricane Maria showed they weren't ready. They likely only need a vibrant campaign to inform the public on the top-5 reasons why they're ready for that change and want that change (the ballot measure narrowly passing if I remember correctly).
Disproportionate representation is a very first means of insulating the citizenry against the will of the mob. They're presumed to be clustered in the largest states: hence, the great show of population "demanding" the change. The coalition of smaller states would never prevail in the House, and never prevail in the presidency. You see tight presidential races because it's an imperfect division: some big states join the cause most often associated with smaller states. The only necessary check against small states seeking redistribution to their benefit is to make all spending bills originate in the portion of government most representing (but not wholly direct-democracy-like representing) the people. Try adding out the number of small states that would need to band together to overrule New York and California representatives combined. It's more than you think. So I don't really agree with you calling it "irrelevant," as least as you've stated it.
I've been in this thread long enough to know the political minorities are frequently dismissed. Do people really want another debate about what the president-elect of the United States promised he would do to a tiny order of Catholic nuns exercising their first amendment rights? Compare this to racial minorities in 2020, and you'll see much better coverage of the issues, as long as you aren't talking black-on-black crime, welfare, the state of black families, inner city education and teacher's unions, affirmative action, and policing. But I digress. The historical injustice and long legacy of slavery and Jim Crow goes through many levels of government and civics; and might've been even less addressed had a war not been fought over it and federal involvement in the states not happened. Then again, much of the preservation of the rights of minorities inspired the resulting legislation by means of saying every citizen is entitled to these rights, and states aren't guaranteeing them to every resident of the state. You'll find a lot of counterintuitive history in that broad subject, such as the NRA fighting to arm poorer blacks against oppression in the south.
But let's not allow examples of imperfect addressing of minority rights through the separation and layering of powers be used as evidence that they are not useful in protecting the rights of minorities. They are useful, they were used in the civil rights era, and you may recall that Frederick Douglass went from opposing the constitution as instrument of oppression to embracing the constitution as document of liberation. Evidence that it didn't solve everything is not useful to prove it wasn't an aid in preventing tyranny of a majority.
So I'm disagreeing with you in every front you bring up. I'm happy to say that legislative inaction does herald to two different Americas existing side-by-side, with something similar to a 81 million to 74 million divide nationally. The benefit of the current system is to allow a president and a possible 51-49 senate and 222-212 house to agree on some legislation and disagree on others, despite the divide. The benefit of the current system is to allow a divided country to disagree heavily on certain issues, and to pause legislative action until (and unless) there is broad agreement in favor of one side or another. See Obama riding to victory in 2008, but that legislative session ending in a historic rebuke in 2010. See Trump in 2016 and then Republicans in 2018. I like it and it doesn't always favor my political agenda.
You have been a little too idealistic in the first two paragraphs. The states represent the important compromises within the state. Cities against rural, industry against regulation (or overregulation), tax and spend against small government. (Generalizing the names to CA) Every state senate and assembly involves compromise over the people's various interests. There is no privilege afforded to some people's vote on an issue. They speak through their representatives at set intervals. If you don't like how things turned out in your state last election, you have two years to organize and campaign with other individuals and groups (thank god for Citizens United) to bring up a slate of proposed changes to present to the people. That's a useful structure, and it's somewhat removed from idealized "the people" as you'd prefer. The representatives and governor set about the business of the state and have the responsibility to report back to the people for evaluation how they thought and what they did because it was their job to be interested in the debates happening at the state capitol. Not to take things to a plebiscite. To concern themselves with the pros and cons of every proposed policy and present it to the voters. Very, very undemocratic, very small-r republican. The state lives and breathes on the process and interchange between citizens of the state and their elected representatives as a thing in itself. Not the people, not monarchs, not the individual votes, and not ballot initiatives. This is a value I'd like to preserve and the people are only one half.
|
So i was reading that republicans are probably not going to win the popular vote again or at least not for a very long time. And not only that the but the gap is only going to get bigger. Does the system still continue to work when a republican president is going elected with a 15M to 20 m vote deficit and a republican house is going 10-15% less votes but holding a majority.
What type of gap do think where the left is like "F**k it i am not going to be rulled by a minority party".
|
On January 03 2021 12:13 Shingi11 wrote:
So i was reading that republicans are probably not going to win the popular vote again or at least not for a very long time. And not only that the but the gap is only going to get bigger. Does the system still continue to work when a republican president is going elected with a 15M to 20 m vote deficit and a republican house is going 10-15% less votes but holding a majority.
What type of gap do think where the left is like "F**k it i am not going to be rulled by a minority party".
I think most democrats will be in hot water if they start getting consistent majorities. I wonder if people will start asking "well why aren't they actually doing anything they promised for the good of the people now that they can't blame Republicans?", or if they'll take the "well at least I got a shit sandwich instead of an arsenic burger" approach. This comes from the party who had the presidency, the house, the supreme court, and a supermajority in the senate and couldn't get a public option added to the ACA.
|
On January 03 2021 12:13 Shingi11 wrote:
So i was reading that republicans are probably not going to win the popular vote again or at least not for a very long time. And not only that the but the gap is only going to get bigger. Does the system still continue to work when a republican president is going elected with a 15M to 20 m vote deficit and a republican house is going 10-15% less votes but holding a majority.
What type of gap do think where the left is like "F**k it i am not going to be rulled by a minority party".
You could read that Texas was going blue in 2020 and Florida was going to show an absolute rejection of the GOP. And Republicans increased their gains in Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Cubans, and Venezuelan Americans to win and gain.
![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/11/04/us/texas-election-battleground-state-counties-promo-1604498818927/texas-election-battleground-state-counties-promo-1604498818927-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600-v20.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/11/05/us/florida-election-battleground-state-counties-promo-1604620172269/florida-election-battleground-state-counties-promo-1604620172269-facebookJumbo-v9.jpg) (Times graphics)
Short of armed revolution when the election doesn't go your way, I'd say nothing is going to happen. Maybe a little property damage in some heavily blue downtown areas?
|
On January 03 2021 12:21 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 12:13 Shingi11 wrote:
So i was reading that republicans are probably not going to win the popular vote again or at least not for a very long time. And not only that the but the gap is only going to get bigger. Does the system still continue to work when a republican president is going elected with a 15M to 20 m vote deficit and a republican house is going 10-15% less votes but holding a majority.
What type of gap do think where the left is like "F**k it i am not going to be rulled by a minority party". I think most democrats will be in hot water if they start getting consistent majorities. I wonder if people will start asking "well why aren't they actually doing anything they promised for the good of the people now that they can't blame Republicans?", or if they'll take the "well at least I got a shit sandwich instead of an arsenic burger" approach. This comes from the party who had the presidency, the house, the supreme court, and a supermajority in the senate and couldn't get a public option added to the ACA.
Weren't they one seat short in the senate from having a filibuster proof majority? I'm reading Obama's latest memoir and he talks about how one senator lost her race in an overwhelmingly Democrat state and that that cost them the crucial vote. Then to get the ACA passed at all they had to make huge concessions and resort to some obscure rule. His book is pretty eye opening about the behind the scenes stuff and how hard it is to get policy through.
|
On January 03 2021 12:39 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 12:21 mierin wrote:On January 03 2021 12:13 Shingi11 wrote:
So i was reading that republicans are probably not going to win the popular vote again or at least not for a very long time. And not only that the but the gap is only going to get bigger. Does the system still continue to work when a republican president is going elected with a 15M to 20 m vote deficit and a republican house is going 10-15% less votes but holding a majority.
What type of gap do think where the left is like "F**k it i am not going to be rulled by a minority party". I think most democrats will be in hot water if they start getting consistent majorities. I wonder if people will start asking "well why aren't they actually doing anything they promised for the good of the people now that they can't blame Republicans?", or if they'll take the "well at least I got a shit sandwich instead of an arsenic burger" approach. This comes from the party who had the presidency, the house, the supreme court, and a supermajority in the senate and couldn't get a public option added to the ACA. Weren't they one seat short in the senate from having a filibuster proof majority? I'm reading Obama's latest memoir and he talks about how one senator lost her race in an overwhelmingly Democrat state and that that cost them the crucial vote. Then to get the ACA passed at all they had to make huge concessions and resort to some obscure rule. His book is pretty eye opening about the behind the scenes stuff and how hard it is to get policy through.
The seat you're talking about was from a special election the first year or so into his presidency. They had to make "huge concessions" well before that point and arguably was the reason why they lost that seat.
It was a bizarre election too as it was in peak Obama popularity and the guy who won had his whole campaign based on him driving a truck. He lost his election the very next cycle but they immediately went to a simple vote to get what they could. 2010 was the tea party election and somehow Obama had just lost his passion or ability to turnout crowds like he did just a few years before.
|
I don't know why anybody continues to humor Danglar's protestations against being systemically oppressed based on identity politics.
|
The problem is not so much that disproportionate representation can be a good thing in some instances. That may be true but It is not sufficient to say disproportionate representation can be good ("can be" is not synonymous with "is"). There are limits to everything and of course no one would be able to justify Wyoming having 101 senators. My point is that, one also needs to justify why the current level of disproportionate representation is good. Now this is no easy task but if you cannot explain this, then these kinds of arguments are not compelling to me.
|
On January 03 2021 23:53 Gahlo wrote:
I don't know why anybody continues to humor Danglar's protestations against being systemically oppressed based on identity politics.
Attack the man, reframe his arguments into overused cultural tropes, and justify dismissal without consideration.
Truly a work of art. Why confess such laziness towards ideas, by seeking to change the focus to the person making them? You want to receive kudos from a bubble that also performs and justifies this treatment?
|
On January 03 2021 12:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 12:13 Shingi11 wrote:
So i was reading that republicans are probably not going to win the popular vote again or at least not for a very long time. And not only that the but the gap is only going to get bigger. Does the system still continue to work when a republican president is going elected with a 15M to 20 m vote deficit and a republican house is going 10-15% less votes but holding a majority.
What type of gap do think where the left is like "F**k it i am not going to be rulled by a minority party". You could read that Texas was going blue in 2020 and Florida was going to show an absolute rejection of the GOP. And Republicans increased their gains in Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Cubans, and Venezuelan Americans to win and gain. (Times graphics) Short of armed revolution when the election doesn't go your way, I'd say nothing is going to happen. Maybe a little property damage in some heavily blue downtown areas?
So you would have no issues with the current system if the population were even more disproportionate ? What a joke. Tyranny of the minority.
|
On January 04 2021 01:33 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 12:29 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2021 12:13 Shingi11 wrote:
So i was reading that republicans are probably not going to win the popular vote again or at least not for a very long time. And not only that the but the gap is only going to get bigger. Does the system still continue to work when a republican president is going elected with a 15M to 20 m vote deficit and a republican house is going 10-15% less votes but holding a majority.
What type of gap do think where the left is like "F**k it i am not going to be rulled by a minority party". You could read that Texas was going blue in 2020 and Florida was going to show an absolute rejection of the GOP. And Republicans increased their gains in Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Cubans, and Venezuelan Americans to win and gain. (Times graphics) Short of armed revolution when the election doesn't go your way, I'd say nothing is going to happen. Maybe a little property damage in some heavily blue downtown areas? So you would have no issues with the current system if the population were even more disproportionate ? What a joke. Tyranny of the minority.
This is one of the biggest problems with conservatives like Danglars.
They constantly talk about "protecting the minority from a tyranny of the majority" while refusing to acknowledge that all they end up doing is advocating for a tyranny by the minority.
Not only this, they try to rationalize why aspects of the system are justifiable, yet it has been thoroughly explained why the American political system is just bad. It's highly exploitable, extremely susceptible to corruption, glacially slow and incompetent when attempting to address pressing societal issues, and disenfranchises or under-represents millions of its people. And yet, with their political opponents offering up a myriad of actual solutions in an attempt to demonstrably improve the lives of the American people, conservatives had absolutely nothing meaningful to contribute to solving problems from healthcare to climate change to income inequality to the corruption of our political system.
|
|
|
What exactly is the point of this? Even if they were to magically give Georgia to Trump, he still loses the election.
...Unless he's having these phone calls with other states as well...
|
On January 04 2021 05:09 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:What exactly is the point of this? Even if they were to magically give Georgia to Trump, he still loses the election. ...Unless he's having these phone calls with other states as well...
I am surprised I have not heard more about lawsuits against the Trump campaign, I hope they pile up when he is out of office!
Even the intelligence agencies should treat this as a serious attack on the democracy using lies and manipulation. If the US is ever going to come out of this mess, there is a lot of serious cleanup work to be done!
|
On January 04 2021 05:09 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:What exactly is the point of this? Even if they were to magically give Georgia to Trump, he still loses the election. ...Unless he's having these phone calls with other states as well...
imo it's a combination of owning the libs, trolling the libs, playing 4D chess and setting up the ultimate Trump card so he can become modern Caesar. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with his massive incompetence and disregard for democracy and rule of law. That's crazy talk.
|
I didn't think it was possible for me to overestimate Trump at this point, but having listened to that he might just be the world's first politician to lack the mental capacity to have a persona.
|
The "funniest" part is now democrats will have a hard time to not start another impeachment...
|
Add this to the list of reasons it isn’t acceptable for someone to say they support a fascist because they disagree with the other party. Fascists are a uniquely terrible beast and anyone who supports trump is left with the shame that comes with this. They failed ethically.
|
Just saw this as well,this seems like a very serious issue.
Can his immunity as a president be lifted for something like this?
|
On January 04 2021 07:57 pmh wrote:Just saw this as well,this seems like a very serious issue. Can his immunity as a president be lifted for something like this? Congress could impeach him. It would go the same way as last time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
