|
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 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?
He probably violated GA election law, but he's very unlikely to face charges for it : GA AG is a republican.
His blanket federal immunity is mostly because the head of the DoJ is appointed by the president. So of course they're never going to prosecute him (in theory a corrupt AG will be removed, in practice, no, they won't). Actual courts that commented on it have scoffed at the memo that is used for justifying the president's immunity from federal prosecution (and gone pretty far out of their way to do so : it's obviously never been tested in court). It was also first made up to protect Richard Nixon.
The remedy is impeachment, but there's unlikely to be enough time.
Lawandcrime has a nice writeup on why this is pretty hard to charge and roundup of legal takes. Basically, Trump has to show "corrupt intent", and it's hard to PROVE that he's doing so for corrupt reasons.
https://lawandcrime.com/politics/hard-to-prosecute-some-legal-experts-note-challenge-in-prosecuting-trump-for-call-with-georgia-secretary-of-state/
In other news, Pelosi is speaker again, but it was very narrow : she lost 5 votes (3 presents and 2 nonsense votes). So it was 217 for her.
|
On January 03 2021 08:51 Danglars wrote:
[There's a lot of room in the gap between every state gets the same representation in the House, and every state gets representation directly proportional to their citizens. Neither extreme is desirable.
A shame you don't understand that this view is what's "extreme".
That every state gets representation directly proportional to their citizens is not an extreme. It is a middle ground. An extreme would be that larger states are weighed more per citizen than smaller ones.
And yet nobody here is arguing for that because they find that an extreme. You, though, keep on insisting that for FEDERAL decisions, that affect equally every human being in the united states, smaller states get more of a say. They can get any say they want for their state laws, but why should citizens of wyoming or others have more say for diplomatic relations, war, electing the president, or other federal stuff, than anyone else?
It might be a collection of states, but the federal power is what it is. Federal. Affecting everyone.
Again, equal representation is NOT an extreme. It is the median.
|
On January 04 2021 08:08 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +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? He probably violated GA election law, but he's very unlikely to face charges for it : GA AG is a republican. His blanket federal immunity is mostly because the head of the DoJ is appointed by the president. So of course they're never going to prosecute him (in theory a corrupt AG will be removed, in practice, no, they won't). Actual courts that commented on it have scoffed at the memo that is used for justifying the president's immunity from federal prosecution (and gone pretty far out of their way to do so : it's obviously never been tested in court). It was also first made up to protect Richard Nixon. The remedy is impeachment, but there's unlikely to be enough time. Lawandcrime has a nice writeup on why this is pretty hard to charge and roundup of legal takes. Basically, Trump has to show "corrupt intent", and it's hard to PROVE that he's doing so for corrupt reasons. https://lawandcrime.com/politics/hard-to-prosecute-some-legal-experts-note-challenge-in-prosecuting-trump-for-call-with-georgia-secretary-of-state/In other news, Pelosi is speaker again, but it was very narrow : she lost 5 votes (3 presents and 2 nonsense votes). So it was 217 for her.
What in the fuck did the Squad get for this?
From my googling the people who didnt vote for her are Jared Golden-MA, Connor Lamb-PA voted for someone else, and Mikie Sherill-NJ, Elissa Slotkin-MI, and HOLY SHIT Abigail Spanberger-My District abstained.
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER didn't vote for her and called for new leadership but THE GOD DAMNED SQUAD VOTED FOR PELOSI?
What concessions did they earn for this, what power did the Squad gain, what committee seats, what anything was gained for this?!
|
On January 04 2021 08:09 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 08:51 Danglars wrote:
[There's a lot of room in the gap between every state gets the same representation in the House, and every state gets representation directly proportional to their citizens. Neither extreme is desirable. A shame you don't understand that this view is what's "extreme". That every state gets representation directly proportional to their citizens is not an extreme. It is a middle ground. An extreme would be that larger states are weighed more per citizen than smaller ones. And yet nobody here is arguing for that because they find that an extreme. You, though, keep on insisting that for FEDERAL decisions, that affect equally every human being in the united states, smaller states get more of a say. They can get any say they want for their state laws, but why should citizens of wyoming or others have more say for diplomatic relations, war, electing the president, or other federal stuff, than anyone else? It might be a collection of states, but the federal power is what it is. Federal. Affecting everyone. Again, equal representation is NOT an extreme. It is the median.
You may have missed that I simultaneously argue for a decrease in the range and import of federal decisions affecting domestic policy. I know I've written several long posts, but I deliberately included it. You shouldn't care that massachusetts wants socialized medicine and texas prefers consumption taxes to income taxes.
For the rest, I don't really get you. This is a very left wing forum in the American sense, probably center or center-left from European. The moderation has banned most of the right-wing users that didn't quit posting regularly or at all before. I get their PMs still sometimes. Why talk about what some anonymous internet user thinks should be a median? You have no useful backing, unless you claim you are a Supreme Moral Arbiter that declares what should be the middle ground. I wasted a lot of time, it seems, presenting the argument for states and their useful mediating influence between the citizens and the federal government. I cannot see your "median view" as anything other than disastrous naivete of the action of mobs with no reason to persuade their fellow citizens once they find themselves at 50.001%. And states have the moral obligation to strike down the laws or secede when the historical power sharing relationship (equal representation by state in Senate, proportionally larger representation for big states in House and Presidency) is violated for no matched benefit somewhere else.
If you treat smaller states this way, you ought to end up with some ~20 state union and ~30 state union, and go ham with directly proportional power to states in whatever big states want to hang around under that new regime. By God, if a right-winger had told me that yahoos on the internet thought a 53-to-1 representation advantage was simply awful for California compared to Alaska because it gave Alaska undue influence, I'd say he was inventing leftist strawmen that no honest debater would even propose.
|
On January 04 2021 08:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2021 08:09 Nouar wrote:On January 03 2021 08:51 Danglars wrote:
[There's a lot of room in the gap between every state gets the same representation in the House, and every state gets representation directly proportional to their citizens. Neither extreme is desirable. A shame you don't understand that this view is what's "extreme". That every state gets representation directly proportional to their citizens is not an extreme. It is a middle ground. An extreme would be that larger states are weighed more per citizen than smaller ones. And yet nobody here is arguing for that because they find that an extreme. You, though, keep on insisting that for FEDERAL decisions, that affect equally every human being in the united states, smaller states get more of a say. They can get any say they want for their state laws, but why should citizens of wyoming or others have more say for diplomatic relations, war, electing the president, or other federal stuff, than anyone else? It might be a collection of states, but the federal power is what it is. Federal. Affecting everyone. Again, equal representation is NOT an extreme. It is the median. You may have missed that I simultaneously argue for a decrease in the range and import of federal decisions affecting domestic policy. I know I've written several long posts, but I deliberately included it. You shouldn't care that massachusetts wants socialized medicine and texas prefers consumption taxes to income taxes. For the rest, I don't really get you. This is a very left wing forum in the American sense, probably center or center-left from European. The moderation has banned most of the right-wing users that didn't quit posting regularly or at all before. I get their PMs still sometimes. Why talk about what some anonymous internet user thinks should be a median? You have no useful backing, unless you claim you are a Supreme Moral Arbiter that declares what should be the middle ground. I wasted a lot of time, it seems, presenting the argument for states and their useful mediating influence between the citizens and the federal government. I cannot see your "median view" as anything other than disastrous naivete of the action of mobs with no reason to persuade their fellow citizens once they find themselves at 50.001%. And states have the moral obligation to strike down the laws or secede when the historical power sharing relationship (equal representation by state in Senate, proportionally larger representation for big states in House and Presidency) is violated for no matched benefit somewhere else. If you treat smaller states this way, you ought to end up with some ~20 state union and ~30 state union, and go ham with directly proportional power to states in whatever big states want to hang around under that new regime. By God, if a right-winger had told me that yahoos on the internet thought a 53-to-1 representation advantage was simply awful for California compared to Alaska because it gave Alaska undue influence, I'd say he was inventing leftist strawmen that no honest debater would even propose.
I think the part you are missing is that most of us see your logic and arguments as poorly as you apparently see ours. No one is saying we are confident we are the all powerful all knowing truth, but it’s what we believe. All we can do is give our best guess at what the best solution or ethics is. Same thing you are doing. We’re having a discussion, none of our views matter at all. If we all said “Wow Danglars, you’re so right. You’re super smart”, nothing would change. Your life and the culture of our country will never change because of anything we say here. You don’t need to convince us and we don’t need to convince you. There is value in conversation but there isn’t value in winning some made up argument.
|
On January 04 2021 09:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2021 08:52 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2021 08:09 Nouar wrote:On January 03 2021 08:51 Danglars wrote:
[There's a lot of room in the gap between every state gets the same representation in the House, and every state gets representation directly proportional to their citizens. Neither extreme is desirable. A shame you don't understand that this view is what's "extreme". That every state gets representation directly proportional to their citizens is not an extreme. It is a middle ground. An extreme would be that larger states are weighed more per citizen than smaller ones. And yet nobody here is arguing for that because they find that an extreme. You, though, keep on insisting that for FEDERAL decisions, that affect equally every human being in the united states, smaller states get more of a say. They can get any say they want for their state laws, but why should citizens of wyoming or others have more say for diplomatic relations, war, electing the president, or other federal stuff, than anyone else? It might be a collection of states, but the federal power is what it is. Federal. Affecting everyone. Again, equal representation is NOT an extreme. It is the median. You may have missed that I simultaneously argue for a decrease in the range and import of federal decisions affecting domestic policy. I know I've written several long posts, but I deliberately included it. You shouldn't care that massachusetts wants socialized medicine and texas prefers consumption taxes to income taxes. For the rest, I don't really get you. This is a very left wing forum in the American sense, probably center or center-left from European. The moderation has banned most of the right-wing users that didn't quit posting regularly or at all before. I get their PMs still sometimes. Why talk about what some anonymous internet user thinks should be a median? You have no useful backing, unless you claim you are a Supreme Moral Arbiter that declares what should be the middle ground. I wasted a lot of time, it seems, presenting the argument for states and their useful mediating influence between the citizens and the federal government. I cannot see your "median view" as anything other than disastrous naivete of the action of mobs with no reason to persuade their fellow citizens once they find themselves at 50.001%. And states have the moral obligation to strike down the laws or secede when the historical power sharing relationship (equal representation by state in Senate, proportionally larger representation for big states in House and Presidency) is violated for no matched benefit somewhere else. If you treat smaller states this way, you ought to end up with some ~20 state union and ~30 state union, and go ham with directly proportional power to states in whatever big states want to hang around under that new regime. By God, if a right-winger had told me that yahoos on the internet thought a 53-to-1 representation advantage was simply awful for California compared to Alaska because it gave Alaska undue influence, I'd say he was inventing leftist strawmen that no honest debater would even propose. I think the part you are missing is that most of us see your logic and arguments as poorly as you apparently see ours. No one is saying we are confident we are the all powerful all knowing truth, but it’s what we believe. All we can do is give our best guess at what the best solution or ethics is. Same thing you are doing. We’re having a discussion, none of our views matter at all. If we all said “Wow Danglars, you’re so right. You’re super smart”, nothing would change. Your life and the culture of our country will never change because of anything we say here. You don’t need to convince us and we don’t need to convince you. There is value in conversation but there isn’t value in winning some made up argument.
You failed to address my principal point, which is that no user can simply declare what ought to be the median to counter what I think were extremes. It's just another opinion to argue. I don't really see a point to your post standing as a response to mine, but I can take it as some kind of aside.
I think the part you are missing is that most of us see your logic and arguments as poorly as you apparently see ours.
I hope you did not think I somehow missed the average contempt shown to my posts. Previous page, "one of the biggest problems with conservatives like Danglars" in one post and another wondering "why anybody continues to humor [Danglars'] protestations" and ending with cliche. In these times of extreme partisanship, it's really the least interesting part of a poster, how often they post stuff just accusing bad faith, and arguing that everyone should stop responding, or disbelieving my sincere belief in what would be best for the country.
And frankly, you should reread the post to discover my stated opinion on extremes, and a very flimsy assertation of what the median actually is ("This view is" "It is" "[something different] would be", straight-up declaratory as if he's the authority on what simply is). Do you really think a conflict of opinions can be restated, but paired with a declaration of truth? Maybe substitute "It is a truth universally acknowledged that" with "It is" to see them problem.
|
On January 04 2021 09:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2021 09:14 Mohdoo wrote:On January 04 2021 08:52 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2021 08:09 Nouar wrote:On January 03 2021 08:51 Danglars wrote:
[There's a lot of room in the gap between every state gets the same representation in the House, and every state gets representation directly proportional to their citizens. Neither extreme is desirable. A shame you don't understand that this view is what's "extreme". That every state gets representation directly proportional to their citizens is not an extreme. It is a middle ground. An extreme would be that larger states are weighed more per citizen than smaller ones. And yet nobody here is arguing for that because they find that an extreme. You, though, keep on insisting that for FEDERAL decisions, that affect equally every human being in the united states, smaller states get more of a say. They can get any say they want for their state laws, but why should citizens of wyoming or others have more say for diplomatic relations, war, electing the president, or other federal stuff, than anyone else? It might be a collection of states, but the federal power is what it is. Federal. Affecting everyone. Again, equal representation is NOT an extreme. It is the median. You may have missed that I simultaneously argue for a decrease in the range and import of federal decisions affecting domestic policy. I know I've written several long posts, but I deliberately included it. You shouldn't care that massachusetts wants socialized medicine and texas prefers consumption taxes to income taxes. For the rest, I don't really get you. This is a very left wing forum in the American sense, probably center or center-left from European. The moderation has banned most of the right-wing users that didn't quit posting regularly or at all before. I get their PMs still sometimes. Why talk about what some anonymous internet user thinks should be a median? You have no useful backing, unless you claim you are a Supreme Moral Arbiter that declares what should be the middle ground. I wasted a lot of time, it seems, presenting the argument for states and their useful mediating influence between the citizens and the federal government. I cannot see your "median view" as anything other than disastrous naivete of the action of mobs with no reason to persuade their fellow citizens once they find themselves at 50.001%. And states have the moral obligation to strike down the laws or secede when the historical power sharing relationship (equal representation by state in Senate, proportionally larger representation for big states in House and Presidency) is violated for no matched benefit somewhere else. If you treat smaller states this way, you ought to end up with some ~20 state union and ~30 state union, and go ham with directly proportional power to states in whatever big states want to hang around under that new regime. By God, if a right-winger had told me that yahoos on the internet thought a 53-to-1 representation advantage was simply awful for California compared to Alaska because it gave Alaska undue influence, I'd say he was inventing leftist strawmen that no honest debater would even propose. I think the part you are missing is that most of us see your logic and arguments as poorly as you apparently see ours. No one is saying we are confident we are the all powerful all knowing truth, but it’s what we believe. All we can do is give our best guess at what the best solution or ethics is. Same thing you are doing. We’re having a discussion, none of our views matter at all. If we all said “Wow Danglars, you’re so right. You’re super smart”, nothing would change. Your life and the culture of our country will never change because of anything we say here. You don’t need to convince us and we don’t need to convince you. There is value in conversation but there isn’t value in winning some made up argument. You failed to address my principal point, which is that no user can simply declare what ought to be the median to counter what I think were extremes. It's just another opinion to argue. I don't really see a point to your post standing as a response to mine, but I can take it as some kind of aside. Show nested quote +I think the part you are missing is that most of us see your logic and arguments as poorly as you apparently see ours. I hope you did not think I somehow missed the average contempt shown to my posts. Previous page, "one of the biggest problems with conservatives like Danglars" in one post and another wondering "why anybody continues to humor [Danglars'] protestations" and ending with cliche. In these times of extreme partisanship, it's really the least interesting part of a poster, how often they post stuff just accusing bad faith, and arguing that everyone should stop responding, or disbelieving my sincere belief in what would be best for the country. And frankly, you should reread the post to discover my stated opinion on extremes, and a very flimsy assertation of what the median actually is ("This view is" "It is" "[something different] would be", straight-up declaratory as if he's the authority on what simply is). Do you really think a conflict of opinions can be restated, but paired with a declaration of truth? Maybe substitute "It is a truth universally acknowledged that" with "It is" to see them problem.
I agree defining the middle or whatever is inherently stupid. It’s a lazy and cowardly way of saying what is correct or reasonable. The middle ground was stupid during the revolutionary war. It was also stupid when fighting against slavery. The middle ground was great during the Cold War. We should always just define what we think is good or bad rather than jack off bullshit definitions of “middle”. At one point the middle ground was segregated schools. At another point middle ground was beating women rather than killing them for being raped in Muslim cultures. Middle definitions can go die in a ditch.
|
Northern Ireland26044 Posts
Too lazy to respond properly to Danglars’ points, they’re too fleshed out for a point by point response.
I definitely think there’s something to what you’re saying. Disproportionate weighting towards smaller states being counterbalanced by a less dominant federal apparatus.
But well, we do have the latter and it seems that genie isn’t going in the bottle anytime soon.
The whole edifice of US political structures seems utterly, utterly fucked in a myriad of ways to me, lots of good ideas and intentions that just are not functioning these days.
There are plenty of reasons be they sensitivity cultural differences but also economic and even environmental to push power away from big urban centres, and very little reason to do so under straight majoritarianism.
I think as you appear to that is indeed a problem, albeit what does one do about it?
|
On January 04 2021 10:05 WombaT wrote:
Too lazy to respond properly to Danglars’ points, they’re too fleshed out for a point by point response.
I definitely think there’s something to what you’re saying. Disproportionate weighting towards smaller states being counterbalanced by a less dominant federal apparatus.
But well, we do have the latter and it seems that genie isn’t going in the bottle anytime soon.
The whole edifice of US political structures seems utterly, utterly fucked in a myriad of ways to me, lots of good ideas and intentions that just are not functioning these days.
There are plenty of reasons be they sensitivity cultural differences but also economic and even environmental to push power away from big urban centres, and very little reason to do so under straight majoritarianism.
I think as you appear to that is indeed a problem, albeit what does one do about it?
It’s probably, as you say, too “utterly fucked” in the short term for much to be done. For the intermediate term of next four to eight years, things are just a little too crazy to know how the political fortunes will go. There’s too much gut feeling that somethings not right in the major governmental, media, societal institutions, and too little restraint shown in attacking the entire edifice or claiming all attacks are meritless. Hell, Biden has an outside chance to govern as a moderate, kept honest by his left wing, and everybody just calms down for a little bit to think things over more rationally.
|
On January 04 2021 10:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2021 10:05 WombaT wrote:
Too lazy to respond properly to Danglars’ points, they’re too fleshed out for a point by point response.
I definitely think there’s something to what you’re saying. Disproportionate weighting towards smaller states being counterbalanced by a less dominant federal apparatus.
But well, we do have the latter and it seems that genie isn’t going in the bottle anytime soon.
The whole edifice of US political structures seems utterly, utterly fucked in a myriad of ways to me, lots of good ideas and intentions that just are not functioning these days.
There are plenty of reasons be they sensitivity cultural differences but also economic and even environmental to push power away from big urban centres, and very little reason to do so under straight majoritarianism.
I think as you appear to that is indeed a problem, albeit what does one do about it? It’s probably, as you say, too “utterly fucked” in the short term for much to be done. For the intermediate term of next four to eight years, things are just a little too crazy to know how the political fortunes will go. There’s too much gut feeling that somethings not right in the major governmental, media, societal institutions, and too little restraint shown in attacking the entire edifice or claiming all attacks are meritless. Hell, Biden has an outside chance to govern as a moderate, kept honest by his left wing, and everybody just calms down for a little bit to think things over more rationally. Is there any reason at all to assume the Republican party will become/go back to being rational based on their actions since the election?
|
On January 04 2021 10:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2021 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2021 10:05 WombaT wrote:
Too lazy to respond properly to Danglars’ points, they’re too fleshed out for a point by point response.
I definitely think there’s something to what you’re saying. Disproportionate weighting towards smaller states being counterbalanced by a less dominant federal apparatus.
But well, we do have the latter and it seems that genie isn’t going in the bottle anytime soon.
The whole edifice of US political structures seems utterly, utterly fucked in a myriad of ways to me, lots of good ideas and intentions that just are not functioning these days.
There are plenty of reasons be they sensitivity cultural differences but also economic and even environmental to push power away from big urban centres, and very little reason to do so under straight majoritarianism.
I think as you appear to that is indeed a problem, albeit what does one do about it? It’s probably, as you say, too “utterly fucked” in the short term for much to be done. For the intermediate term of next four to eight years, things are just a little too crazy to know how the political fortunes will go. There’s too much gut feeling that somethings not right in the major governmental, media, societal institutions, and too little restraint shown in attacking the entire edifice or claiming all attacks are meritless. Hell, Biden has an outside chance to govern as a moderate, kept honest by his left wing, and everybody just calms down for a little bit to think things over more rationally. Is there any reason at all to assume the Republican party will become/go back to being rational based on their actions since the election?
I know my audience, so I’ll say, it depends if you considered them rational in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012. Nothing is going to change if you couldn’t find anything laudatory to say about the party back in those years.
It’s too chaotic with the actual leader of the party claiming he actually won the election to make a timeframe for something more normal to resume (more right-wing populist normal, as the party is now composed). But the answer is kind of in your question—how much about literally a two month span of time can be extrapolated to six months and a year?
|
Northern Ireland26044 Posts
On January 04 2021 10:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2021 10:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 04 2021 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2021 10:05 WombaT wrote:
Too lazy to respond properly to Danglars’ points, they’re too fleshed out for a point by point response.
I definitely think there’s something to what you’re saying. Disproportionate weighting towards smaller states being counterbalanced by a less dominant federal apparatus.
But well, we do have the latter and it seems that genie isn’t going in the bottle anytime soon.
The whole edifice of US political structures seems utterly, utterly fucked in a myriad of ways to me, lots of good ideas and intentions that just are not functioning these days.
There are plenty of reasons be they sensitivity cultural differences but also economic and even environmental to push power away from big urban centres, and very little reason to do so under straight majoritarianism.
I think as you appear to that is indeed a problem, albeit what does one do about it? It’s probably, as you say, too “utterly fucked” in the short term for much to be done. For the intermediate term of next four to eight years, things are just a little too crazy to know how the political fortunes will go. There’s too much gut feeling that somethings not right in the major governmental, media, societal institutions, and too little restraint shown in attacking the entire edifice or claiming all attacks are meritless. Hell, Biden has an outside chance to govern as a moderate, kept honest by his left wing, and everybody just calms down for a little bit to think things over more rationally. Is there any reason at all to assume the Republican party will become/go back to being rational based on their actions since the election? I know my audience, so I’ll say, it depends if you considered them rational in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012. Nothing is going to change if you couldn’t find anything laudatory to say about the party back in those years. It’s too chaotic with the actual leader of the party claiming he actually won the election to make a timeframe for something more normal to resume (more right-wing populist normal, as the party is now composed). But the answer is kind of in your question—how much about literally a two month span of time can be extrapolated to six months and a year?
I’d be more inclined to extrapolate on trends rather than timeframes, and well, current trends aren’t exactly promising.
That said things seem to accelerate and reverse more quickly in today’s fast-paced world so who knows.
I’m unsure of the experiences in various locales inhabited by Liquidians, but at least here Covid has distracted/vaguely unified people from normal political squabblings. Least from what I gather of the States even that has been a divisive thing. There’ll always be dissenters everywhere they’re just not fuelled by authority figures in quite the same way.
|
nvm, too old for this shit
|
On January 04 2021 10:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2021 10:25 Gorsameth wrote:On January 04 2021 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2021 10:05 WombaT wrote:
Too lazy to respond properly to Danglars’ points, they’re too fleshed out for a point by point response.
I definitely think there’s something to what you’re saying. Disproportionate weighting towards smaller states being counterbalanced by a less dominant federal apparatus.
But well, we do have the latter and it seems that genie isn’t going in the bottle anytime soon.
The whole edifice of US political structures seems utterly, utterly fucked in a myriad of ways to me, lots of good ideas and intentions that just are not functioning these days.
There are plenty of reasons be they sensitivity cultural differences but also economic and even environmental to push power away from big urban centres, and very little reason to do so under straight majoritarianism.
I think as you appear to that is indeed a problem, albeit what does one do about it? It’s probably, as you say, too “utterly fucked” in the short term for much to be done. For the intermediate term of next four to eight years, things are just a little too crazy to know how the political fortunes will go. There’s too much gut feeling that somethings not right in the major governmental, media, societal institutions, and too little restraint shown in attacking the entire edifice or claiming all attacks are meritless. Hell, Biden has an outside chance to govern as a moderate, kept honest by his left wing, and everybody just calms down for a little bit to think things over more rationally. Is there any reason at all to assume the Republican party will become/go back to being rational based on their actions since the election? I know my audience, so I’ll say, it depends if you considered them rational in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012. Nothing is going to change if you couldn’t find anything laudatory to say about the party back in those years. It’s too chaotic with the actual leader of the party claiming he actually won the election to make a timeframe for something more normal to resume (more right-wing populist normal, as the party is now composed). But the answer is kind of in your question—how much about literally a two month span of time can be extrapolated to six months and a year?
I don't know, that also depends on how representative those 2 months are of their previous behavior. For people not in the Trump bubble, it was always obvious they were gonna pull this shit. Trumpers don't get to write off the last 2 months as a spasm.
|
On January 04 2021 10:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2021 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2021 10:05 WombaT wrote:
Too lazy to respond properly to Danglars’ points, they’re too fleshed out for a point by point response.
I definitely think there’s something to what you’re saying. Disproportionate weighting towards smaller states being counterbalanced by a less dominant federal apparatus.
But well, we do have the latter and it seems that genie isn’t going in the bottle anytime soon.
The whole edifice of US political structures seems utterly, utterly fucked in a myriad of ways to me, lots of good ideas and intentions that just are not functioning these days.
There are plenty of reasons be they sensitivity cultural differences but also economic and even environmental to push power away from big urban centres, and very little reason to do so under straight majoritarianism.
I think as you appear to that is indeed a problem, albeit what does one do about it? It’s probably, as you say, too “utterly fucked” in the short term for much to be done. For the intermediate term of next four to eight years, things are just a little too crazy to know how the political fortunes will go. There’s too much gut feeling that somethings not right in the major governmental, media, societal institutions, and too little restraint shown in attacking the entire edifice or claiming all attacks are meritless. Hell, Biden has an outside chance to govern as a moderate, kept honest by his left wing, and everybody just calms down for a little bit to think things over more rationally. Is there any reason at all to assume the Republican party will become/go back to being rational based on their actions since the election?
i think the more important question is are republicans prepared to actually give a shit about their leader's character. rational thinking only gets you so far. im pretty sure most people in this thread would consider themselves to have conversed rationally and yet there are people on both sides of the spectrum with completely differing opinions. mitt romney has earned my respect in that regard as he's one of the very few republicans to openly state that his party shouldnt dismiss character
|
On January 04 2021 10:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2021 10:21 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2021 10:05 WombaT wrote:
Too lazy to respond properly to Danglars’ points, they’re too fleshed out for a point by point response.
I definitely think there’s something to what you’re saying. Disproportionate weighting towards smaller states being counterbalanced by a less dominant federal apparatus.
But well, we do have the latter and it seems that genie isn’t going in the bottle anytime soon.
The whole edifice of US political structures seems utterly, utterly fucked in a myriad of ways to me, lots of good ideas and intentions that just are not functioning these days.
There are plenty of reasons be they sensitivity cultural differences but also economic and even environmental to push power away from big urban centres, and very little reason to do so under straight majoritarianism.
I think as you appear to that is indeed a problem, albeit what does one do about it? It’s probably, as you say, too “utterly fucked” in the short term for much to be done. For the intermediate term of next four to eight years, things are just a little too crazy to know how the political fortunes will go. There’s too much gut feeling that somethings not right in the major governmental, media, societal institutions, and too little restraint shown in attacking the entire edifice or claiming all attacks are meritless. Hell, Biden has an outside chance to govern as a moderate, kept honest by his left wing, and everybody just calms down for a little bit to think things over more rationally. Is there any reason at all to assume the Republican party will become/go back to being rational based on their actions since the election?
Off course they will and it wont take 8 years either. Trump beeing the candidate again in 4 years is highly unlikely and then in a few years the republicans think back about this time and they think,well we tried that it but it didnt really work out.
Its kinda interesting how the perspective is that the epidemic did ruin Trumps re-election. I though this as well initially but now i begin to doubt if there wasnt more to it.
The epidemic has been bad for many countries in the eu as well but overall the government kept the support of the voters. In the netherlands the major governing party even stands at a 20% gain and our numbers per captiva are worse then the usa. This kinda makes me think that it was more then the epidemic alone which did cost trump his re-election in the end.
Maybe it did tip the scale but his support was probably kinda fragile to begin with to make that possible. As if people where looking for an excuse to vote him out,if that makes sense.
|
|
|
The pandemic was Trump's crisis and great test. It didn't ruin anything for Trump, it merely gave people a daily reminder that his leadership skills - now being tested and brought to the fore on a national scale - fucking sucked ass, and he deserved to get tossed out on his ass. It simply created an opportunity for the more meritorious candidate to prevail. Turns out when you spend all your time grifting and inciting violence there's not a lot of merit left to speak of.
|
you mean lack thereof?
Seriously his whole family and every senator/person who tries to violate the constitution deserves what they are about to get. -_-
|
How was it bad? It wasnt great but he didnt do worse then many other western nations. Many countries in eu got worse numbers per captiva then the usa yet here the governments kept the support. I am pretty sure even boris still has the majority behind him,now that he got brexit done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
