|
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 November 08 2018 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker.
She is going to be speaker, she is the best one for the job
|
If there is one thing Pelosi can do, that is gather votes for legislation throughout the Dem party. Other than that, I think new blood is needed. Let's see how Sharice Davids fairs after a few years. She may be the next one.
|
On November 07 2018 23:19 Atreides wrote:
The gerrymandering of house seats is pretty egregious and extremely difficult to defend in general, but I am sure you could find some historically democratic districts with bizarre boundaries also.
That is ENTIRELY different than the argument being made here about the senate and the popular vote in general (electoral college in presidential years). People who bash on those are quick to point out the arguments in favor of the popular vote, but never even bother to address the arguments against it. Which have existed for 250 years and are why the systems exist so they don't exactly need listed out.
Furthermore I don't think EU posters in general understand the sheer geographical and social differences present. We are talking Estonia to France type levels pretty easily. The concern was made about how all the left leaning voters from the populations centers would begin to feel disenfranchised and would promote social unrest. Look at any Election Map. The exact same thing is true for all those vast expanses of red areas that would feel the exact same way if people from the coasts were dictating there day to day lives from THOUSANDS of miles away and they had no representation. Like pretty much any issue there is clearly two sides to it, and it is hard to imagine a nice, clean solution to the undeniably shitty situation.
What does the damage which gerrymandering does to democratic institutions got to do with social and geographical difference? Many people outside of USA have relatives in USA and have traveled to various culturally differently places in USA, and in any case the urban/rural divide is pretty common in all democratic countries (and even some authoritarian ones!), it's not something special at all you are trying to make out. What is special however is the sheer political tribalism in USA, but all posters here are well aware of that. We have people in this very forum who appear to be arguing against correcting the gerrymandering, now that's a social difference which is present worth talking about.
|
On November 08 2018 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker.
Never got it, what’s the problem with Pelosi?
|
Norway28707 Posts
I think people don't like her because people don't like her
edit:
I mean, it's more that she represents this calculating politician type of politician which is very much out of style these days. Now, a genuine person who makes occasional missteps is much preferable. She doesn't come off as genuine, even to her base.
|
She's very establishment and is a primary target of Republicans. I'm not a fan, but her strength as a congressional leader and stated willingness to work towards a transition in party leadership lead me to be ok with her being Speaker. That said, she better call a spade a spade and not continually retreat to bipartisan Democratic moral victory lalaland.
|
On November 07 2018 22:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 18:00 Kyadytim wrote:
To use a Starcraft analogy, the Republican party is playing Starcraft on a machine with hacks installed. They didn't install the hacks, but they're lying about having them and refusing to turn them off, and instead leveraging them for every advantage they can get. And then they're pointing to their ladder ranking and head to head winrates as evidence of how good they are at the game. Obviously, Democrats don't want to use ladder rankings or head to head winrates as a measure of comparative skill, because Republicans are hacking. And the underlying issue that I keep talking about is that Democrats are getting sick of playing Starcraft against a hacker.
In this analogy, playing Starcraft against someone is participating in the same democratic process with an opposing party and respecting its outcomes. The problem with your analogy is that democrats were playing on the hacks computer for a long time and only seem to care now that the Republicans have their turn.
What? The hacks in this case are the structural advantages Republicans have because the Senate and to a lesser extent the House are designed to give extra representation to people living in sparsely populated states. It's only recently that US political parties started splitting so cleanly on the urban/rural divide.
On November 07 2018 21:39 Silvanel wrote:
If the demographic trends hold i think in 10-20 years we might see big democratic states go "No taxation without FAIR representation". Exactly.
|
On November 08 2018 00:57 plasmidghost wrote:
Now that I've slept on it and the disappointment's somewhat worn off, it's amazing that a Democrat was able to get so much support in Texas. Being only 2.6% behind is not something to sneeze at, and perhaps when Cruz is up for reelection in 2024, we could vote in a Democrat. I highly doubt John Cornyn will come anywhere remotely close to being beaten by a Democrat in 2020, though
If cruz is on the ballot in 2024 i would expect that, people i've known in texas vote for him reluctantly just to avoid voting for a democrat. At Least in the group of independents/republicans they hang out with he's not really liked he's just the dead fish that better than a democrat.
On November 08 2018 01:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 23:19 Atreides wrote:
The gerrymandering of house seats is pretty egregious and extremely difficult to defend in general, but I am sure you could find some historically democratic districts with bizarre boundaries also.
That is ENTIRELY different than the argument being made here about the senate and the popular vote in general (electoral college in presidential years). People who bash on those are quick to point out the arguments in favor of the popular vote, but never even bother to address the arguments against it. Which have existed for 250 years and are why the systems exist so they don't exactly need listed out.
Furthermore I don't think EU posters in general understand the sheer geographical and social differences present. We are talking Estonia to France type levels pretty easily. The concern was made about how all the left leaning voters from the populations centers would begin to feel disenfranchised and would promote social unrest. Look at any Election Map. The exact same thing is true for all those vast expanses of red areas that would feel the exact same way if people from the coasts were dictating there day to day lives from THOUSANDS of miles away and they had no representation. Like pretty much any issue there is clearly two sides to it, and it is hard to imagine a nice, clean solution to the undeniably shitty situation. What does the damage which gerrymandering does to democratic institutions got to do with social and geographical difference? Many people outside of USA have relatives in USA and have traveled to various culturally differently places in USA, and in any case the urban/rural divide is pretty common in all democratic countries (and even some authoritarian ones!), it's not something special at all you are trying to make out. What is special however is the sheer political tribalism in USA, but all posters here are well aware of that. We have people in this very forum who appear to be arguing against correcting the gerrymandering, now that's a social difference which is present worth talking about.
That is what gerrymandering encourages. Packing cracking and kidnapping encourage very safe democrat/republican seats in a two party system which tend to lead more to political extremes as opposed to just right of middle which is what most americans actually are. This tribalism increases because there is no punishment by voters when going to the extremes because representatives choose their voters. So the popular rhetoric is to those who are elected which is the extreme encouraging tribalism and breaking down confidence in the system by the voter.
On November 08 2018 01:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Never got it, what’s the problem with Pelosi?
She represents far liberal policies. The district she represents is the heart of san francisco a super safe liberal district. Essentially things republicans hate it could be a mistake if the democrats wish to use their strategy that did them well for years in trying to appeal to just right of center which is what most of america actually is.
|
I understand that, but I am asking what relation does that fact that USA has social and geographical differences got to do with "clearly two sides to it". It's not a given that social and geographical difference leads to gerrymandering; the east and west coast are thousands of miles apart but could be similar enough culturally, and in fact most Americans are far more similar than they think culturally, far more than a Spanish and a Norwegian can ever be. The real cultural divide would be those who support gerrymandering and those who do not. Every modern developed democratic country have an urban/rural divide. There's only two sides and it isn't Republicans vs Democrats like he is saying, it's supporting the contunance of gerrymandering vs rectifying the gerrymandering.
|
Pelosi will be a good one-term Speaker. She has to just do a few things - draw fire from Republicans, whip votes when necessary, fundraise, help mentor the next generation of Democratic leadership.
|
On November 08 2018 02:50 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 00:57 plasmidghost wrote:
Now that I've slept on it and the disappointment's somewhat worn off, it's amazing that a Democrat was able to get so much support in Texas. Being only 2.6% behind is not something to sneeze at, and perhaps when Cruz is up for reelection in 2024, we could vote in a Democrat. I highly doubt John Cornyn will come anywhere remotely close to being beaten by a Democrat in 2020, though If cruz is on the ballot in 2024 i would expect that, people i've known in texas vote for him reluctantly just to avoid voting for a democrat. At Least in the group of independents/republicans they hang out with he's not really liked he's just the dead fish that better than a democrat. Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 01:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 07 2018 23:19 Atreides wrote:
The gerrymandering of house seats is pretty egregious and extremely difficult to defend in general, but I am sure you could find some historically democratic districts with bizarre boundaries also.
That is ENTIRELY different than the argument being made here about the senate and the popular vote in general (electoral college in presidential years). People who bash on those are quick to point out the arguments in favor of the popular vote, but never even bother to address the arguments against it. Which have existed for 250 years and are why the systems exist so they don't exactly need listed out.
Furthermore I don't think EU posters in general understand the sheer geographical and social differences present. We are talking Estonia to France type levels pretty easily. The concern was made about how all the left leaning voters from the populations centers would begin to feel disenfranchised and would promote social unrest. Look at any Election Map. The exact same thing is true for all those vast expanses of red areas that would feel the exact same way if people from the coasts were dictating there day to day lives from THOUSANDS of miles away and they had no representation. Like pretty much any issue there is clearly two sides to it, and it is hard to imagine a nice, clean solution to the undeniably shitty situation. What does the damage which gerrymandering does to democratic institutions got to do with social and geographical difference? Many people outside of USA have relatives in USA and have traveled to various culturally differently places in USA, and in any case the urban/rural divide is pretty common in all democratic countries (and even some authoritarian ones!), it's not something special at all you are trying to make out. What is special however is the sheer political tribalism in USA, but all posters here are well aware of that. We have people in this very forum who appear to be arguing against correcting the gerrymandering, now that's a social difference which is present worth talking about. That is what gerrymandering encourages. Packing cracking and kidnapping encourage very safe democrat/republican seats in a two party system which tend to lead more to political extremes as opposed to just right of middle which is what most americans actually are. This tribalism increases because there is no punishment by voters when going to the extremes because representatives choose their voters. So the popular rhetoric is to those who are elected which is the extreme encouraging tribalism and breaking down confidence in the system by the voter. Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 01:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 08 2018 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Never got it, what’s the problem with Pelosi? She represents far liberal policies. The district she represents is the heart of san francisco a super safe liberal district. Essentially things republicans hate it could be a mistake if the democrats wish to use their strategy that did them well for years in trying to appeal to just right of center which is what most of america actually is.
I'm sorry, but that needs a citation. Or a qualifier, or something. If you're saying that most Americans are right of center by European standards, fine. But you can't just assert that most Americans are right of center by American standards with no supporting evidence. A majority of Americans voted for Clinton in 2016, and by the NYT dems are currently up 51,142,767 votes to 47,083,141 votes. Both of these indicate that a majority of Americans are left leaning by American standards.
|
This press conference has gone completely off the rails. Trump is mocking republicans who lost and lashing out at reporters for super basic questions.
But in a low energy sort of way.
|
On November 08 2018 03:09 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 02:50 semantics wrote:On November 08 2018 00:57 plasmidghost wrote:
Now that I've slept on it and the disappointment's somewhat worn off, it's amazing that a Democrat was able to get so much support in Texas. Being only 2.6% behind is not something to sneeze at, and perhaps when Cruz is up for reelection in 2024, we could vote in a Democrat. I highly doubt John Cornyn will come anywhere remotely close to being beaten by a Democrat in 2020, though If cruz is on the ballot in 2024 i would expect that, people i've known in texas vote for him reluctantly just to avoid voting for a democrat. At Least in the group of independents/republicans they hang out with he's not really liked he's just the dead fish that better than a democrat. On November 08 2018 01:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 07 2018 23:19 Atreides wrote:
The gerrymandering of house seats is pretty egregious and extremely difficult to defend in general, but I am sure you could find some historically democratic districts with bizarre boundaries also.
That is ENTIRELY different than the argument being made here about the senate and the popular vote in general (electoral college in presidential years). People who bash on those are quick to point out the arguments in favor of the popular vote, but never even bother to address the arguments against it. Which have existed for 250 years and are why the systems exist so they don't exactly need listed out.
Furthermore I don't think EU posters in general understand the sheer geographical and social differences present. We are talking Estonia to France type levels pretty easily. The concern was made about how all the left leaning voters from the populations centers would begin to feel disenfranchised and would promote social unrest. Look at any Election Map. The exact same thing is true for all those vast expanses of red areas that would feel the exact same way if people from the coasts were dictating there day to day lives from THOUSANDS of miles away and they had no representation. Like pretty much any issue there is clearly two sides to it, and it is hard to imagine a nice, clean solution to the undeniably shitty situation. What does the damage which gerrymandering does to democratic institutions got to do with social and geographical difference? Many people outside of USA have relatives in USA and have traveled to various culturally differently places in USA, and in any case the urban/rural divide is pretty common in all democratic countries (and even some authoritarian ones!), it's not something special at all you are trying to make out. What is special however is the sheer political tribalism in USA, but all posters here are well aware of that. We have people in this very forum who appear to be arguing against correcting the gerrymandering, now that's a social difference which is present worth talking about. That is what gerrymandering encourages. Packing cracking and kidnapping encourage very safe democrat/republican seats in a two party system which tend to lead more to political extremes as opposed to just right of middle which is what most americans actually are. This tribalism increases because there is no punishment by voters when going to the extremes because representatives choose their voters. So the popular rhetoric is to those who are elected which is the extreme encouraging tribalism and breaking down confidence in the system by the voter. On November 08 2018 01:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 08 2018 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Never got it, what’s the problem with Pelosi? She represents far liberal policies. The district she represents is the heart of san francisco a super safe liberal district. Essentially things republicans hate it could be a mistake if the democrats wish to use their strategy that did them well for years in trying to appeal to just right of center which is what most of america actually is. I'm sorry, but that needs a citation. Or a qualifier, or something. If you're saying that most Americans are right of center by European standards, fine. But you can't just assert that most Americans are right of center by American standards with no supporting evidence. A majority of Americans voted for Clinton in 2016, and by the NYT dems are currently up 51,142,767 votes to 47,083,141 votes. Both of these indicate that a majority of Americans are left leaning by American standards.
Majority of voters in the 2016 US Presidential election were left leaning, not the majority of Americans. Let's distinguish our populations since certain demographics in the US are much more prone to vote than others.
EDIT: In addition to that pointless interjection I just made, I would like to note that I just discovered this thread's existence after many years of being on TL. I'm surprised it manages to exist without imploding every few minutes and taking up inordinate amounts of time for moderators to clean up. I'll just say that regardless of where your ideas on policy lie this country is already well along its way down a very dangerous road to something resembling the very faction it broke away from in its own formation during the 1770's. If you aren't already aware please fulfill what I believe is your obligation as a citizen to spend time researching the lengths at which the government has gone to impinge on your civil liberties. Look into the deep state, it's not a conspiracy. It may sound outlandish if you're used to simply feeding on MSM since they're owned by private interests just as our government is, but it's all too real. The more I learn the more disappointed I am. I've moved to just voting against all incumbents regardless of who I agree with policy wise (people's policies change to those of lobbyists after being elected anyways) to keep a high turnover rate so people don't get too comfortable and start abusing their positions. Watch Kevin Shipp's presentations if you have time before the government moves to the point of censoring those as well.
|
On November 08 2018 03:24 nahyunjung wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 03:09 Kyadytim wrote:On November 08 2018 02:50 semantics wrote:On November 08 2018 00:57 plasmidghost wrote:
Now that I've slept on it and the disappointment's somewhat worn off, it's amazing that a Democrat was able to get so much support in Texas. Being only 2.6% behind is not something to sneeze at, and perhaps when Cruz is up for reelection in 2024, we could vote in a Democrat. I highly doubt John Cornyn will come anywhere remotely close to being beaten by a Democrat in 2020, though If cruz is on the ballot in 2024 i would expect that, people i've known in texas vote for him reluctantly just to avoid voting for a democrat. At Least in the group of independents/republicans they hang out with he's not really liked he's just the dead fish that better than a democrat. On November 08 2018 01:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 07 2018 23:19 Atreides wrote:
The gerrymandering of house seats is pretty egregious and extremely difficult to defend in general, but I am sure you could find some historically democratic districts with bizarre boundaries also.
That is ENTIRELY different than the argument being made here about the senate and the popular vote in general (electoral college in presidential years). People who bash on those are quick to point out the arguments in favor of the popular vote, but never even bother to address the arguments against it. Which have existed for 250 years and are why the systems exist so they don't exactly need listed out.
Furthermore I don't think EU posters in general understand the sheer geographical and social differences present. We are talking Estonia to France type levels pretty easily. The concern was made about how all the left leaning voters from the populations centers would begin to feel disenfranchised and would promote social unrest. Look at any Election Map. The exact same thing is true for all those vast expanses of red areas that would feel the exact same way if people from the coasts were dictating there day to day lives from THOUSANDS of miles away and they had no representation. Like pretty much any issue there is clearly two sides to it, and it is hard to imagine a nice, clean solution to the undeniably shitty situation. What does the damage which gerrymandering does to democratic institutions got to do with social and geographical difference? Many people outside of USA have relatives in USA and have traveled to various culturally differently places in USA, and in any case the urban/rural divide is pretty common in all democratic countries (and even some authoritarian ones!), it's not something special at all you are trying to make out. What is special however is the sheer political tribalism in USA, but all posters here are well aware of that. We have people in this very forum who appear to be arguing against correcting the gerrymandering, now that's a social difference which is present worth talking about. That is what gerrymandering encourages. Packing cracking and kidnapping encourage very safe democrat/republican seats in a two party system which tend to lead more to political extremes as opposed to just right of middle which is what most americans actually are. This tribalism increases because there is no punishment by voters when going to the extremes because representatives choose their voters. So the popular rhetoric is to those who are elected which is the extreme encouraging tribalism and breaking down confidence in the system by the voter. On November 08 2018 01:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 08 2018 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Never got it, what’s the problem with Pelosi? She represents far liberal policies. The district she represents is the heart of san francisco a super safe liberal district. Essentially things republicans hate it could be a mistake if the democrats wish to use their strategy that did them well for years in trying to appeal to just right of center which is what most of america actually is. I'm sorry, but that needs a citation. Or a qualifier, or something. If you're saying that most Americans are right of center by European standards, fine. But you can't just assert that most Americans are right of center by American standards with no supporting evidence. A majority of Americans voted for Clinton in 2016, and by the NYT dems are currently up 51,142,767 votes to 47,083,141 votes. Both of these indicate that a majority of Americans are left leaning by American standards. Majority of voters in the 2016 US Presidential election were left leaning, not the majority of Americans. Let's distinguish our populations since certain demographics in the US are much more prone to vote than others.
Aren't conservatives more prone to voting than liberals though?
|
On November 08 2018 03:34 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 03:24 nahyunjung wrote:On November 08 2018 03:09 Kyadytim wrote:On November 08 2018 02:50 semantics wrote:On November 08 2018 00:57 plasmidghost wrote:
Now that I've slept on it and the disappointment's somewhat worn off, it's amazing that a Democrat was able to get so much support in Texas. Being only 2.6% behind is not something to sneeze at, and perhaps when Cruz is up for reelection in 2024, we could vote in a Democrat. I highly doubt John Cornyn will come anywhere remotely close to being beaten by a Democrat in 2020, though If cruz is on the ballot in 2024 i would expect that, people i've known in texas vote for him reluctantly just to avoid voting for a democrat. At Least in the group of independents/republicans they hang out with he's not really liked he's just the dead fish that better than a democrat. On November 08 2018 01:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 07 2018 23:19 Atreides wrote:
The gerrymandering of house seats is pretty egregious and extremely difficult to defend in general, but I am sure you could find some historically democratic districts with bizarre boundaries also.
That is ENTIRELY different than the argument being made here about the senate and the popular vote in general (electoral college in presidential years). People who bash on those are quick to point out the arguments in favor of the popular vote, but never even bother to address the arguments against it. Which have existed for 250 years and are why the systems exist so they don't exactly need listed out.
Furthermore I don't think EU posters in general understand the sheer geographical and social differences present. We are talking Estonia to France type levels pretty easily. The concern was made about how all the left leaning voters from the populations centers would begin to feel disenfranchised and would promote social unrest. Look at any Election Map. The exact same thing is true for all those vast expanses of red areas that would feel the exact same way if people from the coasts were dictating there day to day lives from THOUSANDS of miles away and they had no representation. Like pretty much any issue there is clearly two sides to it, and it is hard to imagine a nice, clean solution to the undeniably shitty situation. What does the damage which gerrymandering does to democratic institutions got to do with social and geographical difference? Many people outside of USA have relatives in USA and have traveled to various culturally differently places in USA, and in any case the urban/rural divide is pretty common in all democratic countries (and even some authoritarian ones!), it's not something special at all you are trying to make out. What is special however is the sheer political tribalism in USA, but all posters here are well aware of that. We have people in this very forum who appear to be arguing against correcting the gerrymandering, now that's a social difference which is present worth talking about. That is what gerrymandering encourages. Packing cracking and kidnapping encourage very safe democrat/republican seats in a two party system which tend to lead more to political extremes as opposed to just right of middle which is what most americans actually are. This tribalism increases because there is no punishment by voters when going to the extremes because representatives choose their voters. So the popular rhetoric is to those who are elected which is the extreme encouraging tribalism and breaking down confidence in the system by the voter. On November 08 2018 01:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 08 2018 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Please no pelosi speaker. Never got it, what’s the problem with Pelosi? She represents far liberal policies. The district she represents is the heart of san francisco a super safe liberal district. Essentially things republicans hate it could be a mistake if the democrats wish to use their strategy that did them well for years in trying to appeal to just right of center which is what most of america actually is. I'm sorry, but that needs a citation. Or a qualifier, or something. If you're saying that most Americans are right of center by European standards, fine. But you can't just assert that most Americans are right of center by American standards with no supporting evidence. A majority of Americans voted for Clinton in 2016, and by the NYT dems are currently up 51,142,767 votes to 47,083,141 votes. Both of these indicate that a majority of Americans are left leaning by American standards. Majority of voters in the 2016 US Presidential election were left leaning, not the majority of Americans. Let's distinguish our populations since certain demographics in the US are much more prone to vote than others. Aren't conservatives more prone to voting than liberals though?
Thats mostly myth carrying from stereotypes of young people not voteing and old people always voteing. Its like how democrats vote when it rains and republicans don't.
Its much more likely that california will split into Multiple states than leave the union and get bent over a barrel for their water supply.
|
For Pelosi to be replaced, someone who is better at her job needs to show up and explain how he/she could whip more votes and raise more money than Pelosi can. Speaker isn't actually a nationally elected office like the President. The President has to win a whole lot of key states. The Speaker needs to be the best person in the caucus at getting votes and money and the only people who vote on the speaker are legislators in the congressional majority. I get that Pelosi is triggering to socially liberal but fiscally conservative libertarians (that still manage to vote Trump), but she isn't going anywhere until someone shows up who is better at her job.
|
On November 08 2018 01:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think people don't like her because people don't like her
edit:
I mean, it's more that she represents this calculating politician type of politician which is very much out of style these days. Now, a genuine person who makes occasional missteps is much preferable. She doesn't come off as genuine, even to her base.
Well, in theory. Those people never seem to win elections so...
|
On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 22:51 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2018 18:00 Kyadytim wrote:
To use a Starcraft analogy, the Republican party is playing Starcraft on a machine with hacks installed. They didn't install the hacks, but they're lying about having them and refusing to turn them off, and instead leveraging them for every advantage they can get. And then they're pointing to their ladder ranking and head to head winrates as evidence of how good they are at the game. Obviously, Democrats don't want to use ladder rankings or head to head winrates as a measure of comparative skill, because Republicans are hacking. And the underlying issue that I keep talking about is that Democrats are getting sick of playing Starcraft against a hacker.
In this analogy, playing Starcraft against someone is participating in the same democratic process with an opposing party and respecting its outcomes. The problem with your analogy is that democrats were playing on the hacks computer for a long time and only seem to care now that the Republicans have their turn. What? The hacks in this case are the structural advantages Republicans have because the Senate and to a lesser extent the House are designed to give extra representation to people living in sparsely populated states. It's only recently that US political parties started splitting so cleanly on the urban/rural divide. Show nested quote +On November 07 2018 21:39 Silvanel wrote:
If the demographic trends hold i think in 10-20 years we might see big democratic states go "No taxation without FAIR representation". Exactly.
We can have a conversation about if power has swung too far towards small states versus large states, but I suspect the small states will use that same "No taxation without fair representation" line after you've swung power in the other direction towards the larger states.
|
On November 08 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:This press conference has gone completely off the rails. Trump is mocking republicans who lost and lashing out at reporters for super basic questions. But in a low energy sort of way. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1060224231722627072 Trump is Trump.
But on the flip side. He got to ask his question, sit down and let someone else.
|
On November 08 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:
This press conference has gone completely off the rails. Trump is mocking republicans who lost and lashing out at reporters for super basic questions.
But in a low energy sort of way.
How can he still publicly accuse media of lying? Why don't they take him to court for this? His "fake news" is actually "lie" in his own newspeak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
