|
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 December 10 2022 04:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 04:04 KwarK wrote:
“If our government is going to fuck over our citizens domestically then we better make sure they’re fucked just as hard abroad by other governments. To do otherwise would be unethical.” You are ignoring the disrespect to people of a lower class. Our institutions treating citizens equally is enormously important. This isn't a zero-cost thing. It isn't just "irony". It is an injustice. You can't just pretend that doesn't mean anything. She can wait while Biden takes steps to give the same treatment to everyone else. There is too much harm done to too many people, and also our institutions, by letting this happen without the same being applied to everyone else.
This this is the perfect time to get your governor to pardon all people who were arrested for weed. And likewise for everyone else in different states that feel the same. The governor can pardon just as easily as the president and it'll probably be just as quick. Shitting on Biden for handling an international issue while domestic issues lie unresolved is an exercise in futility. Your breath is wasted.
|
United States24750 Posts
So if she was arrested in russia for minor jaywalking but the other facts were the same, would you disagree with the trade that just occurred?
|
On December 10 2022 04:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 04:06 Mohdoo wrote:On December 10 2022 04:04 KwarK wrote:
“If our government is going to fuck over our citizens domestically then we better make sure they’re fucked just as hard abroad by other governments. To do otherwise would be unethical.” You are ignoring the disrespect to people of a lower class. Our institutions treating citizens equally is enormously important. This isn't a zero-cost thing. It isn't just "irony". It is an injustice. You can't just pretend that doesn't mean anything. She can wait while Biden takes steps to give the same treatment to everyone else. There is too much harm done to too many people, and also our institutions, by letting this happen without the same being applied to everyone else. This this is the perfect time to get your governor to pardon all people who were arrested for weed. And likewise for everyone else in different states that feel the same. The governor can pardon just as easily as the president and it'll probably be just as quick. Shitting on Biden for handling an international issue while domestic issues lie unresolved is an exercise in futility. Your breath is wasted.
Oregon already did that, thankfully. My understanding is that governors do state stuff and feds do federal stuff.
There is no bandwidth issue. I can shit on Biden while still addressing loads of other topics. My breath is not wasted. Every expression of ethical dialogue is worthwhile.
On December 10 2022 04:10 micronesia wrote:
So if she was arrested in russia for minor jaywalking but the other facts were the same, would you disagree with the trade that just occurred?
So long as anyone else who is in jail for jaywalking is free, its all good to me. The idea is that the US gov can not choose different laws for different people. Laws applying equally is among the most important qualities of an ethical government.
|
|
|
On December 10 2022 04:15 JimmiC wrote:
Im curious to why mamy Republicans think this is such a bad deal, they let a guy selling people their freedom compared to an evil drug user, possible pusher.
To me this is one of those lose lose situations where any decision is abd amd you arr trying to decide which isess bad. Republicans hate it because it happened under a Democratic president. It really is that simple.
|
On December 09 2022 22:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 22:28 farvacola wrote:
She's making the switch now because we're officially in '24 campaign season, as dumb as that sounds/is, and she was a terrible support for Dems in Arizona this past cycle. She knows the state party won't devote itself to her reelection so shes trying to get ahead on the very steep hill independents have to climb in elections. This not only makes it more likely that she goes away come '24, which is nice, it opens up a spot for Dems to run someone more in line with the party's views. I wonder if she will steal more rep or dem votes given her voting history.
This is why ranked-choice voting is important. Our system should be able to handle a contest between a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent. In practice, if the Independent leans R, they ruin the R's chances, and if they lean D, they ruin the D's chances. A lot of voters become effectively disenfranchised in a three-way race, and it doesn't have to be this way. This is a solved problem: Just use ranked-choice voting. (It also reduces the likelihood of candidates on polar ends of the political spectrum winning.)
The same reasoning applies to people like Bloomberg threatening to run as an Independent in 2020 if Sanders won the D nomination; to the possibility of Trump running as a not-Republican in 2024 if he loses the R nomination; and to Bush/Gore/Nader in 2000. Even 2016 might have turned out differently with ranked choice.
Ranked-choice voting should be a slam dunk because all it does is permit voters to vote for the candidate they like without throwing away their vote.
There may be multiple reasons why the United States is increasingly polarized, and some of those (outrage-based "news" media, outrage-driven social media algorithms) are the result of selfish behavior by private parties, but part of the reason is that the system for electing people is biased toward electing more extreme candidates and reducing common ground. First-past-the-post voting prevents nuanced options from being politically viable. Gerrymandering rewards candidates for having narrow appeal. Party primaries also reward candidates for having narrow appeal. (In an open primary, it is possible for two people of the same party to advance to the general election. Why is this good? Well, think of California. It's basically guaranteed that a Democrat will win, so the party primary is the whole election and the general election is a formality. In an open primary, two Democrats might advance to the general, and then all the Republican voters would have a choice of which Democrat to vote for; and then it would be quite possible for the more right-leaning Democrat to win. [Obviously a Republican could still potentially reach and win the general election if they're actually popular.] The same phenomenon, in reverse, would apply to very red states. With open primaries, you're more likely to see the minority party affect the final choice of who gets elected, and the person elected is more likely to represent the views of their average constituent, not the average member of their base --- two similar-sounding but completely different things.)
|
On December 10 2022 04:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 04:04 KwarK wrote:
“If our government is going to fuck over our citizens domestically then we better make sure they’re fucked just as hard abroad by other governments. To do otherwise would be unethical.” You are ignoring the disrespect to people of a lower class. Our institutions treating citizens equally is enormously important. This isn't a zero-cost thing. It isn't just "irony". It is an injustice. You can't just pretend that doesn't mean anything. She can wait while Biden takes steps to give the same treatment to everyone else. There is too much harm done to too many people, and also our institutions, by letting this happen without the same being applied to everyone else.
Except Biden already pardoned everyone with posession charges. The problem is most people with drug charges were convicted in state trials and not federal which he doesn't have the power to release.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-marijuana-possession
|
On December 10 2022 04:27 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 22:30 JimmiC wrote:On December 09 2022 22:28 farvacola wrote:
She's making the switch now because we're officially in '24 campaign season, as dumb as that sounds/is, and she was a terrible support for Dems in Arizona this past cycle. She knows the state party won't devote itself to her reelection so shes trying to get ahead on the very steep hill independents have to climb in elections. This not only makes it more likely that she goes away come '24, which is nice, it opens up a spot for Dems to run someone more in line with the party's views. I wonder if she will steal more rep or dem votes given her voting history. This is why ranked-choice voting is important. Our system should be able to handle a contest between a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent. In practice, if the Independent leans R, they ruin the R's chances, and if they lean D, they ruin the D's chances. A lot of voters become effectively disenfranchised in a three-way race, and it doesn't have to be this way. This is a solved problem: Just use ranked-choice voting. (It also reduces the likelihood of candidates on polar ends of the political spectrum winning.) The same reasoning applies to people like Bloomberg threatening to run as in Independent in 2020 if Sanders won the D nomination; to the possibility of Trump running as a not-Republican in 2024 if he loses the R nomination; and to Bush/Gore/Nader in 2000. Even 2016 might have turned out differently with ranked choice. Ranked-choice voting should be a slam dunk because all it does is permit voters to vote for the candidate they like without throwing away their vote. There may be multiple reasons why the United States is increasingly polarized, and some of those (outrage-based "news" media, outrage-driven social media algorithms) are the result of selfish behavior by private parties, but part of the reason is that the system for electing people is biased toward electing more extreme candidates and reducing common ground. First-past-the-post voting prevents nuanced options from being politically viable. Gerrymandering rewards candidates for having narrow appeal. Party primaries also reward candidates for having narrow appeal. (In an open primary, it is possible for two people of the same party to advance to the general election. Why is this good? Well, think of California. It's basically guaranteed that a Democrat will win, so the party primary is the whole election and the general election is a formality. In an open primary, two Democrats might advance to the general, and then all the Republican voters would have a choice of which Democrat to vote for; and then it would be quite possible for the more right-leaning Democrat to win. [Obviously a Republican could still potentially reach and win the general election if they're actually popular.] The same phenomenon, in reverse, would apply to very red states. With open primaries, you're more likely to see the minority party affect the final choice of who gets elected, and the person elected is more likely to represent the views of their average constituent, not the average member of their base --- two similar-sounding but completely different things.)
All of this is true. The core problem is simply that the people who would be in a position to push for any change in the election system are the people who have won at the current election system, and who thus have no interest in changing that system.
|
On December 10 2022 04:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 04:04 KwarK wrote:
“If our government is going to fuck over our citizens domestically then we better make sure they’re fucked just as hard abroad by other governments. To do otherwise would be unethical.” You are ignoring the disrespect to people of a lower class. Our institutions treating citizens equally is enormously important. This isn't a zero-cost thing. It isn't just "irony". It is an injustice. You can't just pretend that doesn't mean anything. She can wait while Biden takes steps to give the same treatment to everyone else. There is too much harm done to too many people, and also our institutions, by letting this happen without the same being applied to everyone else.
Another story that is getting some traction is that there is another American in Moscow that was sentenced to 14 years in prison for less than an ounce of medical marijuana in June. But he’s just some random white guy history teacher so most people don’t even know he exists. I didn’t before today. I doubt we can expect any infamous arms dealers to be released in a prisoner swap for him. Despite the urging of bipartisan senators and diplomats the Biden admin has seemingly declined to label him “wrongfully detained” which would allow special attention and negotiations for his case.
https://www.newsweek.com/who-marc-fogel-american-detained-russia-brittney-griner-1765757
|
|
|
On December 10 2022 04:52 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 04:06 Mohdoo wrote:On December 10 2022 04:04 KwarK wrote:
“If our government is going to fuck over our citizens domestically then we better make sure they’re fucked just as hard abroad by other governments. To do otherwise would be unethical.” You are ignoring the disrespect to people of a lower class. Our institutions treating citizens equally is enormously important. This isn't a zero-cost thing. It isn't just "irony". It is an injustice. You can't just pretend that doesn't mean anything. She can wait while Biden takes steps to give the same treatment to everyone else. There is too much harm done to too many people, and also our institutions, by letting this happen without the same being applied to everyone else. Except Biden already pardoned everyone with posession charges. The problem is most people with drug charges were convicted in state trials and not federal which he doesn't have the power to release. https://www.justice.gov/pardon/presidential-proclamation-marijuana-possession
Never mind. We're good then.
|
Its pretty silly to criticize biden on this trade when the same folks were a ok with trump freeing the dude that literally went to lead the Taliban to take back Afghanistan.
The dude is meaningless in the now and was going to get out soon. Do you think a black openly gay American female olympian was going to fair well in a siberian gulag in the middle of a war?
|
On December 10 2022 04:27 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2022 22:30 JimmiC wrote:On December 09 2022 22:28 farvacola wrote:
She's making the switch now because we're officially in '24 campaign season, as dumb as that sounds/is, and she was a terrible support for Dems in Arizona this past cycle. She knows the state party won't devote itself to her reelection so shes trying to get ahead on the very steep hill independents have to climb in elections. This not only makes it more likely that she goes away come '24, which is nice, it opens up a spot for Dems to run someone more in line with the party's views. I wonder if she will steal more rep or dem votes given her voting history. Well, think of California. It's basically guaranteed that a Democrat will win, so the party primary is the whole election and the general election is a formality. In an open primary, two Democrats might advance to the general, and then all the Republican voters would have a choice of which Democrat to vote for; and then it would be quite possible for the more right-leaning Democrat to win.
California does have open primaries and they operate as you describe. The top two go to the general election regardless of party. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/primary-elections-california
|
On December 10 2022 14:16 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 04:27 Djabanete wrote:On December 09 2022 22:30 JimmiC wrote:On December 09 2022 22:28 farvacola wrote:
She's making the switch now because we're officially in '24 campaign season, as dumb as that sounds/is, and she was a terrible support for Dems in Arizona this past cycle. She knows the state party won't devote itself to her reelection so shes trying to get ahead on the very steep hill independents have to climb in elections. This not only makes it more likely that she goes away come '24, which is nice, it opens up a spot for Dems to run someone more in line with the party's views. I wonder if she will steal more rep or dem votes given her voting history. Well, think of California. It's basically guaranteed that a Democrat will win, so the party primary is the whole election and the general election is a formality. In an open primary, two Democrats might advance to the general, and then all the Republican voters would have a choice of which Democrat to vote for; and then it would be quite possible for the more right-leaning Democrat to win. California does have open primaries and they operate as you describe. The top two go to the general election regardless of party. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/primary-elections-california
I see, thanks for the info! It seems I picked an example that demonstrated my own ignorance. Perhaps I was confused by the recent recall election, which worked differently.
|
On December 10 2022 16:36 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 14:16 Severedevil wrote:On December 10 2022 04:27 Djabanete wrote:On December 09 2022 22:30 JimmiC wrote:On December 09 2022 22:28 farvacola wrote:
She's making the switch now because we're officially in '24 campaign season, as dumb as that sounds/is, and she was a terrible support for Dems in Arizona this past cycle. She knows the state party won't devote itself to her reelection so shes trying to get ahead on the very steep hill independents have to climb in elections. This not only makes it more likely that she goes away come '24, which is nice, it opens up a spot for Dems to run someone more in line with the party's views. I wonder if she will steal more rep or dem votes given her voting history. Well, think of California. It's basically guaranteed that a Democrat will win, so the party primary is the whole election and the general election is a formality. In an open primary, two Democrats might advance to the general, and then all the Republican voters would have a choice of which Democrat to vote for; and then it would be quite possible for the more right-leaning Democrat to win. California does have open primaries and they operate as you describe. The top two go to the general election regardless of party. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/primary-elections-california I see, thanks for the info! It seems I picked an example that demonstrated my own ignorance. Perhaps I was confused by the recent recall election, which worked differently.
Recalls are just a fake mechanism west coast states have to make their cletuses feel heard. Every few years, they organize a recall and lose by overwhelming margins. But it gives them something to do, so us educated folks pat them on the head and tell them they are heard and their feelings are legitimate.
|
On December 10 2022 16:36 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 14:16 Severedevil wrote:On December 10 2022 04:27 Djabanete wrote:On December 09 2022 22:30 JimmiC wrote:On December 09 2022 22:28 farvacola wrote:
She's making the switch now because we're officially in '24 campaign season, as dumb as that sounds/is, and she was a terrible support for Dems in Arizona this past cycle. She knows the state party won't devote itself to her reelection so shes trying to get ahead on the very steep hill independents have to climb in elections. This not only makes it more likely that she goes away come '24, which is nice, it opens up a spot for Dems to run someone more in line with the party's views. I wonder if she will steal more rep or dem votes given her voting history. Well, think of California. It's basically guaranteed that a Democrat will win, so the party primary is the whole election and the general election is a formality. In an open primary, two Democrats might advance to the general, and then all the Republican voters would have a choice of which Democrat to vote for; and then it would be quite possible for the more right-leaning Democrat to win. California does have open primaries and they operate as you describe. The top two go to the general election regardless of party. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/primary-elections-california I see, thanks for the info! It seems I picked an example that demonstrated my own ignorance. Perhaps I was confused by the recent recall election, which worked differently.
Both the recall process and the open primaries are nightmares actually IMO. The recall process is a yes-no “do you want to recall this person?” vote, and a “if yes, who should replace them?” with a bunch of candidates.. If Yes gets over 50%, then the candidate with most votes replaces. That means if 49% wanna keep the current governor, and a bunch of other candidates get <10% but one guy gets 11%, the one guy with 11% wins. I have no love for Newsom and wouldn’t have minded recalling him, but it was just too likely we would get some weird wingnut with support in the teens as governor, doing who knows what kind of damage.
The “open primaries” were a change about a decade ago. I voted for them, I’m a little sorry to say. The problem is that if you only send the “top two” to the general election, regardless of party, a well-organized minority party can try to split their votes evenly between two candidates, and if the other side splinters their vote too much they wind up without a candidate in the general. In several cases you wound up with Republicans representing 60-40 Democrat districts because the Dems tried to have, you know, a primary with a bunch of candidates, while the Republicans ran exactly two people.
So it seemed like it would promote more fruitful intra-party competition over which policies and candidates were best, but it actually created a lot more tactical voting for the individual, and incentive at the high level for party leaders to step in and dictate a race (“Okay, you and you, go ahead and run. Anybody else tries it, we will bury you.”)
It’s a shame, it was a neat idea.
|
I agree that the recall elections are poorly structured for exactly the reason you described.
As for the open primaries, thanks for the insights. Sounds like a great opportunity for ranked choice voting.
|
Ranked choice is nice, proportional is nice. Neither will happen in the US in the near future. The sad truth is that if you give the people who are currently winning at a system the choice to change the system, they will usually not do so, especially if that might lead to them having less power.
|
Yeah, definitely got through a couple elections of it and thought “damnit, why didn’t we just do ranked choice?”
|
On December 11 2022 00:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2022 16:36 Djabanete wrote:On December 10 2022 14:16 Severedevil wrote:On December 10 2022 04:27 Djabanete wrote:On December 09 2022 22:30 JimmiC wrote:On December 09 2022 22:28 farvacola wrote:
She's making the switch now because we're officially in '24 campaign season, as dumb as that sounds/is, and she was a terrible support for Dems in Arizona this past cycle. She knows the state party won't devote itself to her reelection so shes trying to get ahead on the very steep hill independents have to climb in elections. This not only makes it more likely that she goes away come '24, which is nice, it opens up a spot for Dems to run someone more in line with the party's views. I wonder if she will steal more rep or dem votes given her voting history. Well, think of California. It's basically guaranteed that a Democrat will win, so the party primary is the whole election and the general election is a formality. In an open primary, two Democrats might advance to the general, and then all the Republican voters would have a choice of which Democrat to vote for; and then it would be quite possible for the more right-leaning Democrat to win. California does have open primaries and they operate as you describe. The top two go to the general election regardless of party. https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/primary-elections-california I see, thanks for the info! It seems I picked an example that demonstrated my own ignorance. Perhaps I was confused by the recent recall election, which worked differently. Recalls are just a fake mechanism west coast states have to make their cletuses feel heard. Every few years, they organize a recall and lose by overwhelming margins. But it gives them something to do, so us educated folks pat them on the head and tell them they are heard and their feelings are legitimate.
In CA, 6 out of 11 eleven recalls that have qualified for the ballot against elected officials have succeeded, including the first gubernatorial attempt against Gray Davis 20 years ago. That's how the Terminator became the governator. Most recent success was a few years ago against a state assemblyman/senator iirc.
****
Top two primaries are dumb and in CA they are meant to lock Republicans out, given just how many Democrat voters there are in the state. It's actually a way diminish the influence of the minority faction, not increase it or force moderation. It's already happened here, including the 2018 senate race. Its how you had the absurd result of red areas voting for de Leon when he was by far the more leftwing candidate. Feinstein has just been around so long that state Republicans just wanted to vote against her when they didn't really know him. (Think lots of people left that office blank, I know I did. But if he had a chance at winning I was considering voting for her! It was a ridiculous choice).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
