EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 745
| 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 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11632 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: At this point you think the GOP would go ahead and let one happen as the political fallout is equivalent of driving off a cliff. Also we really need to voter younger people into office. FFS Grassley is 85. The US seems to have this weird thing going on where politicians simply never retire. And they keep getting voted in until they die. Has that always been the case? I find it weird, because i can't see why they keep doing that shit until they are 80+, and i can't see why young people never seem to replace them. Just as a gut feeling, i don't think we have as many politicians who are clearly past their retirement age in Germany, and i wonder what leads to this difference. | ||
|
franzji
United States583 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:39 Simberto wrote: The US seems to have this weird thing going on where politicians simply never retire. And they keep getting voted in until they die. Has that always been the case? I find it weird, because i can't see why they keep doing that shit until they are 80+, and i can't see why young people never seem to replace them. Just as a gut feeling, i don't think we have as many politicians who are clearly past their retirement age in Germany, and i wonder what leads to this difference. It's not actually that weird or out of the ordinary for the US. Politics is dominated by powerful families. A Bush or Clinton has been on the ballot in all but three elections in the past 50 years. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:39 Simberto wrote: The US seems to have this weird thing going on where politicians simply never retire. And they keep getting voted in until they die. Has that always been the case? I find it weird, because i can't see why they keep doing that shit until they are 80+, and i can't see why young people never seem to replace them. Just as a gut feeling, i don't think we have as many politicians who are clearly past their retirement age in Germany, and i wonder what leads to this difference. Campaign finance laws, 2 party system, gerrymandering, low primary turnout, being a large country. So for example you have gerrymandered (or just states that always vote one way) districts that will always vote democrat in the general election, campaign season rolls around and you have incumbent fossil vs a young person. The incumbent only has to win the primary to win, has an advantage in the primary because the primary voter turnout is low and more establishment friendly, and they generally have the backing of the national party and will get funneled money and endorsements so they can outspend their rival who has to work from the ground up to make a name for themselves. For a lot of the country the primaries are more important than the general election, but they get much less attention and it's much harder to fundraise & advertise for so incumbents can just keep winning since they already have friends in the right places and name recognition. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:39 Simberto wrote: The US seems to have this weird thing going on where politicians simply never retire. And they keep getting voted in until they die. Has that always been the case? I find it weird, because i can't see why they keep doing that shit until they are 80+, and i can't see why young people never seem to replace them. Just as a gut feeling, i don't think we have as many politicians who are clearly past their retirement age in Germany, and i wonder what leads to this difference. Yes. Each state votes in 2 senators and a number of house reps based on their population. Each state prone to voting the same people into office over and over at the Federal level because it is effective, especially when the senate is based on seniority. Senators also have 6 year terms. But senators end up being immortal in teh senate because winning state wide is hard and Americans like familiar politicians. We also cannot have "failed governments" like your parliamentary systems. The closest thing we have is the House, which run on 2 year terms and has some pretty reasonable turn over. Tons of congress members have proposed term limits for both House and Senate, but we would likely need to amend the constitution to do that. | ||
|
chocorush
694 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:54 plasmidghost wrote: How have the emotions been during the hearing? I can't watch the stream, unfortunately Pretty intense. I think very few people were able to remain skeptical after her statements. This has been pretty difficult to watch. Edit: Dat coca cola product placement lolol | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:50 chocorush wrote: Seniority privileges also mean that legislators that have been office for longer have more power, so it is against the people's interest in general to vote in someone new. The senate makes its own rules, including the seniority rule. If people want those rules to be changed, they need to create a political movement across state lines to elect senators who will vote to change those rules. Like the Tea Party and ear marking in budgets(the biggest thing that stopped goverment from functioning) People also need to remember that the Senate cannot do much without the House, which does its own thing and gives zero craps about the Senates rules. The Senate’s slow, long term political process is supposed to temper the House’s tendency to push the politics of the moment. So the impact of seniority only impacts one part of the 3 branches of government. Getting rid of seniority won’t change the way people vote. Few voters know the senate rules anyways. And the US federal government isn’t the be all end all. We have 50 state governments, with 50 state Senates and state Houses all with their own rules and political process. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:54 plasmidghost wrote: How have the emotions been during the hearing? I can't watch the stream, unfortunately This is the wrong question to ask imo. Part of the problem with this type of testimony is that people create in their mind an image of how they expect a sexual assault victim to act, and if they dont meet that standard then they doubt the accuser. I think most people would agree she has been credible. Fox news anchors even agreed. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On September 28 2018 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote: They have someone to blame if it turns into a pr nightmare that isn't an actual Senator.Yeah, having the woman lawyer act as a mouthpiece is just some really weird optics. It's worse than the Republican senators question her directly. And "Sleezy old Senator questions rape victim" is for sure a worse optic then anything this woman will do. | ||
|
franzji
United States583 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 28 2018 01:15 youngjiddle wrote: Polygraph isn't supported by science, even the witness (who is a psychologist) should know this. This isn’t a court room, yet they cross examined her. Science doesn’t matter in the senate, public perception matters. | ||
|
franzji
United States583 Posts
On September 28 2018 01:17 Plansix wrote: This isn’t a court room, yet they cross examined her. Science doesn’t matter in the senate, public perception matters. ok, I just wanted to mention that it isn't credible, and a psychologist of all people should know that. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On September 28 2018 01:15 youngjiddle wrote: Polygraph isn't supported by science, even the witness (who is a psychologist) should know this. Federal organizations regularly use polygraphs as part of the hiring process. Regardless of the ultimate scientific accuracy (it obviously isnt 100% accurate), it clearly holds some value at the federal level. In fact, since this is a federal job interview it almost feels appropriate. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 28 2018 01:18 youngjiddle wrote: ok, I just wanted to mention that it isn't credible, and a psychologist of all people should know that. The FBI and government agencies love the polygraph. Love it beyond reason. One does not oppose that irrational love. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On September 28 2018 01:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Are they seriously trying question her fear of flying? They had a few different lines of questioning and the fear of flying is the closest they have to something decent. Everything else has been kind of a disaster so far for them. | ||
| ||
