EPTI suppose most of the pro israel conservatives view them as a bastion of some sort against muslim extremists.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3021
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
I suppose most of the pro israel conservatives view them as a bastion of some sort against muslim extremists. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3942 Posts
On January 14 2021 23:39 JimmiC wrote: It is pretty strange to me how in the Republicans in the US you have a mix of super pro-hardline conservative Isreal and a whole bunch of really amtisemtic people. How do these people coexist and work together? Is it the enemy of the enemy thing? But it seems like they should be mortal enemies. It is really quite confusing. Here is a interesting article from a Canadian newspaper on the antisemitism in the capital coup attempt. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/mike-fegelman-anti-semitism-was-on-full-display-at-the-washington-riot/ar-BB1cKDAA?li=AAggNb9 As everything, it is just something you criticize your opponent for, but you don't care at all about it in your own ranks. They also preach family values, Christianity, fiscal restraint etc... | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9018 Posts
On January 14 2021 23:39 JimmiC wrote: It is pretty strange to me how in the Republicans in the US you have a mix of super pro-hardline conservative Isreal and a whole bunch of really amtisemtic people. How do these people coexist and work together? Is it the enemy of the enemy thing? But it seems like they should be mortal enemies. It is really quite confusing. Here is a interesting article from a Canadian newspaper on the antisemitism in the capital coup attempt. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/mike-fegelman-anti-semitism-was-on-full-display-at-the-washington-riot/ar-BB1cKDAA?li=AAggNb9 It is a case of the enemy of my enemy but perhaps not in the way you think. Both groups are pro-Israel, the conspiracy nuts that talk about Jewish globalist puppet-masters applaud Israel for kicking muslims around while at the same time denying the holocaust. When it comes to Israel-related policy, it should come easy for old-guard conservatives and Q congressmen to agree. Notice how the latter group always mentions Soros rather than Netanyahu. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
rod409
United States36 Posts
On January 14 2021 15:08 Zambrah wrote: Dianne Feinstein filed FEC papers indicating she intends to run for the Senate again. She'll be like 97 years old when she finishes her Senate career at that point, presuming she doesn't try to run again. Her staff also reports a lot of mental decline, forgetting things she was just told and the like. This old generation of politician really needs to be pushed to retire, we need some people that aren't geriatric to be given a shot. This doesn't necessarily means Feinstein will run again. This is normal to update FEC filings to move money leftover from previous campaigns or just requirements they have to maintain. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On January 15 2021 01:36 Mohdoo wrote: If Feinstein actually tries to run again, there needs to be a giant battle to primary her. Personally I think it’s inappropriate for anyone over the age of 70 to be an elected official. It really depends doesn't it? If someone is great at what they do and in perfect health mentally and good enough physically, I see no problem with folks holding office late in their life. It's just like everything else: there should be a balance a d there shouldn't only be old folks. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On January 15 2021 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: It really depends doesn't it? If someone is great at what they do and in perfect health mentally and good enough physically, I see no problem with folks holding office late in their life. It's just like everything else: there should be a balance a d there shouldn't only be old folks. I think there’s too much cultural variability as a function of age. Someone who is 70 is (generally) too distorted relative to the mean. The other thing is that due to no existing term limits, old politicians are able to end up so well connected (like Clinton) that they basically seize control of a party. Clinton’s 2016 run was an embarrassment and highlighted why term limits need to exist. No one should be able to ever be so ingrained in political systems. | ||
KwarK
United States41995 Posts
On January 15 2021 01:48 Mohdoo wrote: I think there’s too much cultural variability as a function of age. Someone who is 70 is (generally) too distorted relative to the mean. The other thing is that due to no existing term limits, old politicians are able to end up so well connected (like Clinton) that they basically seize control of a party. Clinton’s 2016 run was an embarrassment and highlighted why term limits need to exist. No one should be able to ever be so ingrained in political systems. It’s a product of the English direct constituency model. If each constituency selects the candidate with the best chances then what you’ll end up with is massive over representation of a certain group that is electorally effective. Basically well connected old white dudes. You can’t fix it without changing the elections but one hypothetical system would be a party list system. You vote for parties in a larger multi candidate region and then the parties appoint insiders to seats in the ratio of the votes. So combine 10 congressional districts into 1 and have them all vote in a single election. If 50% vote Republican, 40% Democrat, 10% Libertarian then the Republicans get to seat 5 nominees, Democrats 4, Libertarians 1. You could mandate that their nominees reflect the demographics of the general population too. Would reduce gerrymandering, FPTP, and demographic underrepresentation. But the English model prioritizes having a personal representative for your district that was selected directly. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28560 Posts
Most brilliant professor I ever had during my studies was 70 years old and he had retired, he just had our class as a sort of, guest lecture. Always thought it was a bit sad that he was considered too old to work when I preferred him to literally everybody else. | ||
|
Oukka
Finland1683 Posts
On January 15 2021 01:57 KwarK wrote: It’s a product of the English direct constituency model. If each constituency selects the candidate with the best chances then what you’ll end up with is massive over representation of a certain group that is electorally effective. Basically well connected old white dudes. You can’t fix it without changing the elections but one hypothetical system would be a party list system. You vote for parties in a larger multi candidate region and then the parties appoint insiders to seats in the ratio of the votes. So combine 10 congressional districts into 1 and have them all vote in a single election. If 50% vote Republican, 40% Democrat, 10% Libertarian then the Republicans get to seat 5 nominees, Democrats 4, Libertarians 1. You could mandate that their nominees reflect the demographics of the general population too. Would reduce gerrymandering, FPTP, and demographic underrepresentation. But the English model prioritizes having a personal representative for your district that was selected directly. What are the advantages of the direct constituency system? Especially in a place like UK where the constituencies can be geographically very small. (note: house of commons has more folk in it than house of representatives) I get that in the US having multi candidate regions would basically remove the local element of representation and make also members of the house elected in a statewide election, but that to me sounds more like an argument to increase the number of representatives rather than an argument against multi candidate constituencies. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41995 Posts
On January 15 2021 02:05 Oukka wrote: What are the advantages of the direct constituency system? Especially in a place like UK where the constituencies can be geographically very small. (note: house of commons has more folk in it than house of representatives) I get that in the US having multi candidate regions would basically remove the local element of representation and make also members of the house elected in a statewide election, but that to me sounds more like an argument to increase the number of representatives rather than an argument against multi candidate constituencies. It means your representative really is yours, picked from your district by your district. Of course in a multicandidate list system then you could still mandate that the representative picked by the party to occupy a district seat is from that district so I guess mostly that cuts down on admin. If you need to contact your representative then, assuming you remember who ran in the district and who won, you don't have to look up who was assigned to your district so there's a few seconds of saved time there. If you don't remember the candidates you'd probably still need to look them up though. | ||
|
Oukka
Finland1683 Posts
It is slightly more complicated, but we still teach it to 8th or 9th graders at schools so clearly not that difficult. Anyways, thanks for the reply! I still see multi candidate constituencies as superior in terms of representativeness over the direct constituency FPTP systems, but that argument makes a lot more sense to me than just saying that alternatives are too complicated. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
It would be the best way to address several different problems, including entrenched power/money, the motivations of elected officials, and the skewed age population in congress. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6210 Posts
On January 15 2021 02:39 Stratos_speAr wrote: I just think that term limits are the best solution. It would be the best way to address several different problems, including entrenched power/money, the motivations of elected officials, and the skewed age population in congress. Something like 12 years in house, 12 in senate and 8 as president max? | ||
|
KwarK
United States41995 Posts
On January 15 2021 02:39 Stratos_speAr wrote: I just think that term limits are the best solution. It would be the best way to address several different problems, including entrenched power/money, the motivations of elected officials, and the skewed age population in congress. It wouldn't make representatives any more representative of the demographics of the population. That's a simple plurality issue. The basic simple plurality issue is that if you have 10 constituencies and each is won 45% party A, 40% party B, 15% other parties then you end up with 100% won by party A. But that applies all the way down through the primaries too. If the candidates for party A were 30% old white man, 20% young white man, 20% old white woman, 20% old black man, 10% other then you end up with 100% old white men. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On January 15 2021 01:48 Mohdoo wrote: I think there’s too much cultural variability as a function of age. Someone who is 70 is (generally) too distorted relative to the mean. The other thing is that due to no existing term limits, old politicians are able to end up so well connected (like Clinton) that they basically seize control of a party. Clinton’s 2016 run was an embarrassment and highlighted why term limits need to exist. No one should be able to ever be so ingrained in political systems. I think Clinton would have made a wonderfully capable, experienced and knowledgable president. I have problems with her, but her having navigated the highest level of politics for decades is a plus in my book. Generally someone old is more experienced, and hopefully wiser. Also they remember the mistakes of previous generations which is as well a good thing. I don't know. As long as there is room for young and middle age people too, I am totally fine with 70 yo plus politicians. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
On January 15 2021 02:48 Lmui wrote: Something like 12 years in house, 12 in senate and 8 as president max? I don't think that fixed term limits are the answer. Some projects take much more time than that to come to fruition and nothing beats a politician with a proper vision they want to accomplish imo. Can help to keep them honest. (that is a purely anecdotal and subjective assessment btw) | ||
| ||
