EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 309
| 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 | ||
|
Ryzel
United States568 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I am concerned this approach is going to do a lot more harm than good. This seems reasonable at first, but it is pushing for legislative action with a gun to the legislature’s head. It is going to be viewed as political extortion. What is to stop the administration from doing something else terrible and demanding legislative concessions to stop? | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8279 Posts
On June 20 2018 00:18 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1008732754882826241 I am concerned this approach is going to do a lot more harm than good. This seems reasonable at first, but it is pushing for legislative action with a gun to the legislature’s head. It is going to be viewed as political extortion. What is to stop the administration from doing something else terrible and demanding legislative concessions to stop? I don't think it even seems reasonable at first... That wall does nothing and is way too expensive for US' terribly empty bank account right now. It also stops approximately no one from crossing the border in the first place, especially as the majority crosses it legally and just outstays their welcome. Holding human rights violations in hostage to fund this ridiculous contraption makes Trump nothing short of an absolutely monster and horrible human being. And, importantly, like you said it would also set a horrible precedence for the future political landscape. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
it's abundantly clear that it's not about actually enforcing rule of law. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Nothing like a good bald faced lie in the morning. Crime is actually down in Germany. I mean I understand that Trump doesn’t have an argument to support the family separation policy, but what does it say about his supporters that he’s willing to lie so openly? And this is his base of support - the 20-30% who support family separation. I’m not sure he should be doubling down on his base going into the midterms. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12026 Posts
The officials do not report the crimes! But donald trumps crystal ball tells him that crime is actually up 10%. So that is that. Believe the Donald, not your fancy "statistics". | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
The best option someone would have is to guess. And of course it's just a nice round 10%. lol. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
This leads to legislators taking extreme positions because, for most of them, they're more concerned about primaries than general elections. It also leads to our schizophrenic foreign policy. There's little incentive to fight over moderate voters (who usually reward compromise), and unsurprisingly, it seems that legislators from purple states seem most willing to govern responsibly (in contrast with Red State Republicans or the Blue State cool kid presidential hopefuls who indiscriminately #RESIST everything so they can brag about it later on). Gerrymandering plays a role here too, but I suspect the effect of regional representation is far larger (though politically harder to discuss) and more important. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10006 Posts
On June 20 2018 00:45 Mohdoo wrote: The sad thing is, people won't even ask themselves "So if officials aren't reporting it, who is the one compiling and interpreting all this data?" The best option someone would have is to guess. And of course it's just a nice round 10%. lol. You know this will come up again, though. All Trump had to do was mention a knife crime warzone in the UK and we're getting it shoved in our faces on TL (that was also a lie). | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12026 Posts
Police crime statistics flyer from 2014 Police crime statistics flyer from 2017, sadly apparently only in german All of the statistics are readily available here, though a lot of it seems to only exist in German, or i can't find the english versions. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 20 2018 00:52 mozoku wrote: I wonder how much the dysfunction of Congress would be reduced if we stopped electing federal legislators by region (though somehow not necessarily tilting the urban-rural balance--which I don't have a strong opinion on fwiw). The new economy means urban-rural voters are basically two separate countries, but regional elections mean that each politician is only incentivized to appeal to one of the two countries. This leads to legislators taking extreme positions because, for most of them, they're more concerned about primaries than general elections. It also leads to our schizophrenic foreign policy. There's little incentive to fight over moderate voters (who usually reward compromise), and unsurprisingly, it seems that legislators from purple states seem most willing to govern responsibly (in contrast with Red State Republicans or the Blue State cool kid presidential hopefuls who indiscriminately #RESIST everything so they can brag about it later on). Gerrymandering plays a role here too, but I suspect the effect of regional representation is far larger (though politically harder to discuss) and more important. I think this is a problem with the party’s primary systems, which are a more modern political development. Because the turnout for the primaries are so low, the hyper invested extremes of each party control the candidates. It has become more of a problem in the last 10-15 years as that base has figured out how much power they wield by being able to remove someone from the ballot through the primary. The primaries are controlled by state law as well, so it a problem that has to be addressed state by state. We cannot get rid of regional representation, it is the foundation of democracy. But we can push back against electing folks that go to Washington to "oppose" the other party, which amounts to doing nothing. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
What if, exclusively for federal legislative purposes, we broke the US into, say, 10 districts which each have a large number of elected representatives (each voter votes for more than one) that cross state lines with some mandate that the 10 districts must be "purplish" (based on the results of the last presidential election)? You could mandate that >X% (X=40?) of the districts voter's voted for the non-majority party to assess "purpleness"? | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On June 20 2018 00:18 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1008732754882826241 I am concerned this approach is going to do a lot more harm than good. This seems reasonable at first, but it is pushing for legislative action with a gun to the legislature’s head. It is going to be viewed as political extortion. What is to stop the administration from doing something else terrible and demanding legislative concessions to stop? Build a wall 40 foot high, all you do is create a market for ladders 50 foot tall. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 20 2018 01:05 Simberto wrote: Oh, and just to be clear, the whole thing is utter nonsense. I am just going to look at total crimes now, and when we compare 2014 (before the refugee crisis) and 2017, total crimes are reduced from 6,082m incidents in 2014 to 5763 million in 2017. Police crime statistics flyer from 2014 Police crime statistics flyer from 2017, sadly apparently only in german All of the statistics are readily available here, though a lot of it seems to only exist in German, or i can't find the english versions. Statistics? Sounds like a fancy liberal word for "bullshit" in the eyes of redhats. You gotta keep in mind these people believe the government/deepstate are bullshiting *all* of it. All the statistics are lies to them. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
On June 20 2018 01:33 mozoku wrote: If getting rid of it is too much, how about weakening it? What if, exclusively for federal legislative purposes, we broke the US into, say, 10 districts which each have a large number of elected representatives (each voter votes for more than one) that cross state lines with some mandate that the 10 districts must be "purplish" (based on the results of the last presidential election)? You could mandate that >X% (X=40?) of the districts voter's voted for the non-majority party to assess "purpleness"? You'd be creating entire interstate governmental fiefs that are somehow parallel to the federal state county government structure. Good luck getting states to agree to share power with each other. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
That discussion yesterday is looking pretty prescient. We cant expect Trump to not be evil, so it falls on people like Cruz to help us (lol...). Then you have people like Coulter and Ingram saying these kids are actors or being kept in day spas. Man, what a sad time. History will not look kindly on this time period. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 20 2018 01:33 mozoku wrote: If getting rid of it is too much, how about weakening it? What if, exclusively for federal legislative purposes, we broke the US into, say, 10 districts which each have a large number of elected representatives (each voter votes for more than one) that cross state lines with some mandate that the 10 districts must be "purplish" (based on the results of the last presidential election)? You could mandate that >X% (X=40?) of the districts voter's voted for the non-majority party to assess "purpleness"? You would need to amend the constitution drastically, basically rewriting article 1 to change the makeup of congress on a fundamental level. It would change the nature of US goverment as we know it. On a basic level, I also want to push back against the idea that the political parties being evenly split leads to better legislators. That is a byproduct, but the red vs blue divide created by the political parties is a result of way the media frames goverment. It is all that most of us in the US have ever known, but is still recent in US history. If you look back to the 1930 coverage of goverment, it was framed as the president vs congress. Political parties have grown more unified in their stances since the 1990s as well and courted voters based on party affiliation, rather than being for the local union or local industry. Rather than looking at the political divide as something we need to bridge to new rules and systems, look at it as a result of how voters view the goverment. Voters now are being told that they should vote for a Republican/democrat to support/oppose Trump. Not, as was in the past, to represent the voter's interest in Washington. To bring home a piece of the goverment pie for the local community he represent. Side note: The Republicans ended the practice of ear marks back during the tea party surge, which was a big part of their platform. And it made voters feel good, because it ended the pork in bills they did not like. But it also killed the ability for the local reps to pull down federal tax dollars for smaller states, which is not really in the voter's interest. Politicians today are running on making voters feel good about their vote, rather than the outcome after the election. I think this directly feeds into the problem you are describing. The same risk applies to the democrats in this upcoming election. Opposing Trump makes voters who felt powerless feel like they have some control. But there has to be substance afterwords. Voters need to become more concerned with what happens after the election. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 20 2018 01:33 mozoku wrote: If getting rid of it is too much, how about weakening it? What if, exclusively for federal legislative purposes, we broke the US into, say, 10 districts which each have a large number of elected representatives (each voter votes for more than one) that cross state lines with some mandate that the 10 districts must be "purplish" (based on the results of the last presidential election)? You could mandate that >X% (X=40?) of the districts voter's voted for the non-majority party to assess "purpleness"? You’re just making things less representative for little gain. Try telling voters they have to share their voice with populous metros a state away? Much of the rural Midwest would be entirely disenfranchised from lack of population (large areas must be swept up to make it purplish for just tiny slices of somebody’s metro). Then strategic voting. Then the same political question of where to draw districts and how to redistrict so that one’s blue with a hefty side of red or red with a hefty side of blue. Strategic vote split a bunch of the seats blue if you’re the absolute majority within the district. More establishment “vote for me because I’m electable, and not these other red challenger ... that will just give team blue more absolute seats in the district!!!” that is slightly less of a problem, though a problem, with more regionally divided districts. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
Edit: tweet's not embedding right, but On_Slaught posted it above anyway so I'm not gonna fix it. I'm not normally one to post tweets, but this one seems significant. I don't remember anyone here (even Danglars, iirc) really disagreeing with the idea that Trump is racist at least sometimes, so this might be preaching to the choir, but using the word "infest" to describe a minority group is pretty clearly racist demagoguery to me. I'd be interested to hear if anyone here disagrees, but to be clear, "infest" is a word normally used to describe subhuman animals (rats, cockroaches, Zerg), and he's using it as a blanket term for illegal immigrants. Unlike the "shithole countries," he's not even pretending he didn't say it. The present moment seems like some of the strongest evidence yet that Trump a) holds racist beliefs, and b) those beliefs translate jnto policy. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On June 20 2018 01:48 Sermokala wrote: You'd be creating entire interstate governmental fiefs that are somehow parallel to the federal state county government structure. Good luck getting states to agree to share power with each other. As long as each state's relative voting power remains about the same, would they really be so opposed? I'm not as convinced. Besides, you're sharing it with your neighbors who likely share many of the same political views as your state does to begin with. The secret sauce is in the fact that larger districts allow for more flexibility in creating purple districts (which would be mandated by law). That doesn't transfer power between states (or parties, which is also key), but it transfers power away from extremists. It also makes the transition to a better voting system (i.e. one with multiple votes) an easier pill to swallow. | ||
| ||
