|
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 12 2022 00:52 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 00:06 Zambrah wrote:
I think the goal should be to force the Republicans to die off as a party, because youre right as they are they're an inevitable evil and will eventually get a foothold into power.
Democrats should work to make people's lives very materially better off, increase voting rights and enfranchisement as much as possible, and basically cement themselves as Worthwhile and leave Republicans to suffer for a few decades before reforming as something preferably less psychotically fascist.
Politics basically needs to be redefining in the next decade or two and its either gonna be redefined with fascism or something else, so hopefully the Democrats really do pass some pro-voting enfranchisement.legislation. If the Democrats actually solve these problems like wealth inequality and voting rights, they would lose a lot of the power they have in being the party that promises to solve them. Prolonging the problem by paying lip service to action, but not actually doing it, and claiming the other party is the super badness but secretly relying on the continued existence of said party for their strategy, is the more prudent political play. It takes a blind fool to think that the Democrats are actually interested in solving the problem rather than prolonging it. They're not allies, they're the controlled opposition.
I think they'd find new problems to solve, its not like America can be totally reformed for the better within one presidential cycle or anything, theres plenty of ammo for change + preserving the good changes we've had, and to do that long enough for Republicans to become less-than-viable as a party and move away from fascist psychopathy.
You're right though, Democrats continuing the "But Republicans" political strategy is prudent, its also basically the only thing they know how to do sans chase to the right, so its most probably what we're going to get, but prudence in this moment seems like a bad choice to me. In this case prudence comes from weakness and a weak opposition to fascism is begging for fascism to win, lol.
I also believe the populace at large would be less willing to dig into fascist madness if they were better off. Citizens that are well taken care of aren't going to be as inclined to go fascist imo. Of course Democrats have to give a real proper actual shit about the material conditions of the people in the US and then give a real proper fight to align priorities to make those material conditions improve and thats just not how they feel as a party.
Like, shit like this,
https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local/growing-idaho/affordable-housing-ketchum-rent-blaine-county-crisis-park-tents/277-6dcd3da9-7ce7-4722-81de-b1e379e0300a
Idaho has a county crammed with the ultra rich and housing has become so expensive that its financially not feasible for the workers to actually live there, and one of the potential solutions they had initially floated was a fucking tent city in a park, lol.
There's a bathroom in the park, after all, Ketchum Mayor Neil Bradshaw noted. They could walk over to the YMCA to take a shower before work.
America is headed to some form of dystopia, be it fascist or late stage capitalism/feudalism nightmare, without some major change to curb the mega rich and uplift the impoverished through middle class strata.
|
Strikes me as wishful thinking to say “actually the system is perfectly capable of agile and effective responses to large-scale problems, it’s just that the people currently in charge are sandbagging.” I don’t know that “conspiracy theory” is quite the right term, but it shares the quality of self-soothing that conspiracy theories tend to have - if the world is controlled by a shadowy cabal, at least it’s under control. Much more frightening if the world is chaotic and unpredictable and there’s no way to know if the outcomes you want or don’t want are inevitable or contingent or impossible.
There’s systemic rot and osteoporosis in the government apparatus’ ability to effect policies, even virtually universally favored ones. Democrats might also be bad actors (they certainly seem colossally incompetent, at a minimum), but it seems kind of absurd to me to think everything would be peachy if they just actually wanted to enact good policies. Surely by now they would have at least, I don’t know, legalized marijuana federally or something to convince us they’re doing something.
|
On January 12 2022 01:28 WombaT wrote:
I don’t think they’re controlled opposition as that would infer somebody to who they’re accounting to.
In the US, that is pretty clearly the donor class. They provide enough political capital to all but guarantee that their stooges on both "sides" will stay in power for as long as they want, and that they have a soft landing (million-dollar speaking fees, cushy board positions that pay big money) in case of leaving politics for any reason, whether by choice or as a casualty of some troublesome bout of populism. Whether that's by way of cabal or more so an implicit "we all understand this is in our [donor class's] shared interest to make things work this way" it happens all the same.
On January 12 2022 01:28 WombaT wrote:
I think though that actually fixing some major problems would make the party politically bulletproof, rather than the current state of affairs where the balance floats around the probability of a coin flip.
It would be a short-lived win at best. Can't promise to fix something you already fixed; you'll just give people one less reason to vote for you. Unless the other party promises to undo what you did, but they might well just drop the issue or be only quiet opposition.
|
On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election.
I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace.
|
Northern Ireland26301 Posts
On January 12 2022 02:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 01:28 WombaT wrote:
I don’t think they’re controlled opposition as that would infer somebody to who they’re accounting to. In the US, that is pretty clearly the donor class. They provide enough political capital to all but guarantee that their stooges on both "sides" will stay in power for as long as they want, and that they have a soft landing (million-dollar speaking fees, cushy board positions that pay big money) in case of leaving politics for any reason, whether by choice or as a casualty of some troublesome bout of populism. Whether that's by way of cabal or more so an implicit "we all understand this is in our [donor class's] shared interest to make things work this way" it happens all the same. Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 01:28 WombaT wrote:
I think though that actually fixing some major problems would make the party politically bulletproof, rather than the current state of affairs where the balance floats around the probability of a coin flip. It would be a short-lived win at best. Can't promise to fix something you already fixed; you'll just give people one less reason to vote for you. Unless the other party promises to undo what you did, but they might well just drop the issue or be only quiet opposition.
I would agree that people have short memories and they are less motivated by past gains than hypothetical future ones.
I do think in the US context particularly if the Dems actually delivered something big like a universal healthcare system akin to other places, alleviated relative poverty in real, obvious terms or something they’d be in a very, very strong position for quite some time. At present it’s lack of impetus in that regard on one hand, and the political opposition able to fearmonger about the worst possible implementations of hypothetical reforms.
This of course assumes a competent implementation and such a win would prove broadly popular; but the GOP would have a difficult time pivoting on it with moderates. If you’re actively campaigning tooth and nail against reform for decades I’d be extremely dubious about claims that ‘oh we won’t touch that thing now it’s in’
I’d be an idiot to argue against the power of the donor class, albeit it’s a fragmented class like any other. They, or at least some of them live in the US, so they have stakes in things as well. Probably why we’ve seen more progress on social rather than economic issues, for many in the donor class they themselves suffer from inequalities in the former as much as anyone else, but it’s their bottom line affected by the latter.
There are innumerable cases of pork barrel politics that are particularly obvious, but ultimately I don’t think many legislators are doing the bidding of the donor class, they’re broadly of the same class and believe the same things, so they behave accordingly.
Wealthy people, even those from humble beginnings or perhaps especially those end up internalising the values of the system that benefit them, adopting the bootstrap mentality etc.
Many legislators are no different in this regard, it’s less that they’re at the whim of the donor class and that they belong to roughly the same social strata.
|
On January 12 2022 04:14 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On January 12 2022 01:28 WombaT wrote:
I don’t think they’re controlled opposition as that would infer somebody to who they’re accounting to. In the US, that is pretty clearly the donor class. They provide enough political capital to all but guarantee that their stooges on both "sides" will stay in power for as long as they want, and that they have a soft landing (million-dollar speaking fees, cushy board positions that pay big money) in case of leaving politics for any reason, whether by choice or as a casualty of some troublesome bout of populism. Whether that's by way of cabal or more so an implicit "we all understand this is in our [donor class's] shared interest to make things work this way" it happens all the same. On January 12 2022 01:28 WombaT wrote:
I think though that actually fixing some major problems would make the party politically bulletproof, rather than the current state of affairs where the balance floats around the probability of a coin flip. It would be a short-lived win at best. Can't promise to fix something you already fixed; you'll just give people one less reason to vote for you. Unless the other party promises to undo what you did, but they might well just drop the issue or be only quiet opposition. I would agree that people have short memories and they are less motivated by past gains than hypothetical future ones. I do think in the US context particularly if the Dems actually delivered something big like a universal healthcare system akin to other places, alleviated relative poverty in real, obvious terms or something they’d be in a very, very strong position for quite some time. At present it’s lack of impetus in that regard on one hand, and the political opposition able to fearmonger about the worst possible implementations of hypothetical reforms. This of course assumes a competent implementation and such a win would prove broadly popular; but the GOP would have a difficult time pivoting on it with moderates. If you’re actively campaigning tooth and nail against reform for decades I’d be extremely dubious about claims that ‘oh we won’t touch that thing now it’s in’ I’d be an idiot to argue against the power of the donor class, albeit it’s a fragmented class like any other. They, or at least some of them live in the US, so they have stakes in things as well. Probably why we’ve seen more progress on social rather than economic issues, for many in the donor class they themselves suffer from inequalities in the former as much as anyone else, but it’s their bottom line affected by the latter. There are innumerable cases of pork barrel politics that are particularly obvious, but ultimately I don’t think many legislators are doing the bidding of the donor class, they’re broadly of the same class and believe the same things, so they behave accordingly. Wealthy people, even those from humble beginnings or perhaps especially those end up internalising the values of the system that benefit them, adopting the bootstrap mentality etc. Many legislators are no different in this regard, it’s less that they’re at the whim of the donor class and that they belong to roughly the same social strata.
I don't think you need to make any assumptions about the intent of your average politician beyond:
1. They want to be in power.
2. If they can find a graceful way to make a lot of money off of their role, current or previous, they won't say no.
Combine that with the broad reach of money - direct donations, PACs, lobbying, the best lawyers money can by, ownership of organizations such as media outlets that can shape public opinion, etc - and it doesn't take much for politicians, as a class, to effectively be in the service of the donor class. Sure, you can have very public cases where popular interests defeat moneyed ones, and you can have the wealthy have argument over some details of policy. But in general, it's an uphill battle and the money has a lot more focus and persistence than any popular movement can sustain in the long term. And while the wealthy may not agree on the fine details all of the time, they can generally agree on the direction (socialism for the rich, block all policies that would have a tendency to reduce their wealth) and make sure that they're not competing too hard against each other.
There doesn't have to be an organized cabal pulling the strings to create the effect that one would have; the mention of the same is mostly a straw man. A small group with oversized influence that has 80% concurrence on what they want, and a system not build to resist such influence, create the same result. And that does, incidentally, include paying lip service to policies that the Democrats claim to support, but promising the wealthy that nothing will fundamentally change and always somehow being structurally incapable of going much further than giving out big money to the wealthy.
|
On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election. I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace.
I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.
|
Sure, but they have more control of state legislatures precisely because of gerrymandering.
They did it earlier and more aggressively, and now that they have this power due to gerrymandering, they have the tools to retain it as long as they can keep gerrymandering.
It's self-propagating, which is why it's so incredibly toxic. You can't just wait until someone else is in power - nobody else is likely to ever be in power due to the problem itself.
|
On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election. I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans.
Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit.
If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote".
|
On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit.
Dubious. You can always play gerrymandering from either direction to get significant over-representation. Turning a minority into a small majority representation, or turning a small majority into a supermajority, are both possible depending on how you play it. Not sure that either outcome "has fundamentally greater capacity" to benefit the gerrymandering party.
For example, assume you have 60 citizens of party A and 40 citizens of party B that you need to split among 5 regions of equal population and each with one representative each chosen by straight popular vote. A has 60% representation (3 representatives) in a "fair" scenario, but depending on how you play it you can distribute it to get anywhere from 100% A (all 5 representatives are A) to 60% B (2 representatives from A, 3 representatives from B). The A party has the majority and is way more capable of running up the score than B is whereas B can eke out a small majority from a minority position; not clear that either advantage of gerrymandering is more fundamentally meaningful.
|
On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election. I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote".
Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US.
|
On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election. I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US.
30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy?
|
On January 12 2022 12:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election. I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US. 30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy?
It's just a rhetorical example. My point is that with the percentages as they currently are, it is baseless to claim that the Republican party deserves to only hold limited power.
|
United States43620 Posts
On January 12 2022 13:11 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 12:36 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election. I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US. 30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy? It's just a rhetorical example. My point is that with the percentages as they currently are, it is baseless to claim that the Republican party deserves to only hold limited power.
In a winner takes all system how much power does a minority deserve?
|
On January 12 2022 13:11 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 12:36 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election. I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US. 30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy? It's just a rhetorical example. My point is that with the percentages as they currently are, it is baseless to claim that the Republican party deserves to only hold limited power.
How would you describe the appropriate power dynamic? Should it mean no bills can ever be passed? If Republicans don't want what the democrats want, what happens then? Do we do nothing? It is easy to say "they should have some power", but when you look at the state of our system of passing bills, what does that really look like to you?
|
Pretty clear that if dems nuke the filibuster for ordinary legislation (as opposed to judicial nominations), Republicans will do the same once they inevitably have power. As evidence, see the number of federal judges appointed by Trump.
On the one hand, it seems like a good thing that the president’s party could get things done. On the other hand, those things accomplished could be easily undone later. The filibuster does play a role of encouraging compromise. I tend to favor that compromise between parties, as opposed to just playing partisan politics and saying "lol Republicans are fascists."
|
"The other side will just undo it later," is the kind of logic that dictates noone should do anything since it might just be undone later. Republicans could undo it, they could never hold enough of a Senate presence/Presidential presence and never be able to undo it though, so why not go ahead and just make some positive changes for the working class, after all, the other side could not be able to undo it later?
|
On January 12 2022 13:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 13:11 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 12:36 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 12:01 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 11:17 Mohdoo wrote:On January 12 2022 06:58 gobbledydook wrote:On January 12 2022 03:14 Starlightsun wrote:On January 11 2022 23:03 gobbledydook wrote:
Let's talk about filibuster reform.
The Democrat plan is to enact some sort of filibuster reform to ensure passage of the voting rights act. They claim it is the only way to protect the democracy. Republicans claim it is a way to nationalize the elections, all the better to rig it in favor of Democrats.
My question is: what is there to stop the Republicans from undoing this legislation or pass their own voting related legislation such as voter ID once they gain power? Clearly it is inevitable that at some point, the Democrats will lose an election. I think the idea is that Republicans would not have so much power nationally without gerrymandering and other electoral fuckery. They certainly are not representative of anywhere near half of the populace. I'd say that gerrymandering is something both parties are doing as much as they can. It's just that currently, Republicans have more control of state legislatures, so more states are gerrymandered in favor of Republicans. Biden won by 7 million votes. Gerrymandering will always fundamentally have a greater capacity to help the less popular political party. The whole idea is that you let your opponent win certain areas by a land slide and then win other areas with enough of a margin to be safe. The lesser party thus has a greater benefit. If all representation was just democracy, republicans would have extremely limited power. They only have any relevance because we operate on a "1 corn/cow/human 1 vote" system rather than "1 person 1 vote". Biden won the popular vote by around 4-5% in an election against an asshole who many hated. It is not guaranteed that this lead holds up in the next election. If Republicans had, say, only 30% of the vote and yet due to the system managed to control half the power, you could argue that the Republicans would have extremely limited power if not for the rigged system. But that is not the case, and at most the Democrats have a slight majority in terms of the popular electorate. I think it is disingenous to discard the opinion of the other half of the US. 30% is a totally bonkers threshold. Are you really saying 30% should be the point where a group doesn't get to determine policy? It's just a rhetorical example. My point is that with the percentages as they currently are, it is baseless to claim that the Republican party deserves to only hold limited power. How would you describe the appropriate power dynamic? Should it mean no bills can ever be passed? If Republicans don't want what the democrats want, what happens then? Do we do nothing? It is easy to say "they should have some power", but when you look at the state of our system of passing bills, what does that really look like to you?
It means that some of the time, Republicans will be in power, because that's how democracies work, opinion eventually swings against the governing party. To pretend that Republicans holding power is illegitimate because there are less naturally Republican voters is just being dishonest.
|
On January 12 2022 14:44 Zambrah wrote:Republicans could undo it, they could never hold enough of a Senate presence/Presidential presence and never be able to undo it though
is just wishful thinking. Eventually they will win elections. If you enact something that half the country is adamantly against, regardless of whether objectively the policy would benefit them, that policy is getting overturned next time you lose an election.
|
On January 12 2022 15:16 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2022 14:44 Zambrah wrote:Republicans could undo it, they could never hold enough of a Senate presence/Presidential presence and never be able to undo it though is just wishful thinking. Eventually they will win elections. If you enact something that half the country is adamantly against, regardless of whether objectively the policy would benefit them, that policy is getting overturned next time you lose an election.
Everything that isnt giving up is wishful thinking if you look at American government, Id rather think wishfully and have efforts made to materially uplift people and encourage their franchisement.
Republicans eventually gaining power isnt a foregone conclusion, theres a path out there that leads to the Republicans failing until they reevaluate, restructure, reform as something else, but we'll never find that path if we just decide that its fine to do nothing because nothing can ever be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
