|
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 04:39 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 04:19 brian wrote:On November 08 2018 04:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote: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. 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. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal. and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system. they could, but that wouldn’t actually follow a logical argument. their interests would be taken into account proportionally. if 20% of the people were rural voters they’d be given 20% of the voting power, unless you had just misunderstood his point. or if you think they’d deserve more, that would be an interesting conversation i think. If you give me 20% of the voting power and the 80% overrides my interests every time do I actually have representation?
Think of it as a business.
The owner has control of 51% of voting stock for a company.
I buy up the other 49%.
The owner overrides me on every decision.
Is this fair? He represents more stock (citizens) so I'd argue yes, and in real life this is the case too.
Why should elections be different?
|
|
|
On November 08 2018 05:12 plasmidghost wrote:
The only thing I'm surprised about with regards to the Sessions firing is that it took this long.
So, now that he's gone, can whoever the next AG is stop the Russia investigation? Not sure how that works now that Dems control the House
Yes they can "stop" the investigation, however, the democrats in congress will likely just re-hire mueller independently of the justice department and the results would be the same (Although there would be more complaints of bias)
|
|
|
Yeah, the house would just take over the investigation. And trump can’t stop the NY AGs from doing their work.
|
On November 08 2018 04:49 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 04:39 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 04:19 brian wrote:On November 08 2018 04:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote: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. 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. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal. and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system. they could, but that wouldn’t actually follow a logical argument. their interests would be taken into account proportionally. if 20% of the people were rural voters they’d be given 20% of the voting power, unless you had just misunderstood his point. or if you think they’d deserve more, that would be an interesting conversation i think. If you give me 20% of the voting power and the 80% overrides my interests every time do I actually have representation? The alternative you're proposing is along the lines of 20% of the people have 50% of the representation which they use to override the interests of the other 80% of the people, which should be obviously terrible at a glance to anyone who understands democracy.
Or another way is to ask, should black people be represented by 50% of the lawmakers while black people are only 12.6% of the population? How about Hispanics at 16.3%, should they get 50% representation?
Does anyone not see a problem with everyone demanding 50% representation?
If you don't like racial breakdowns, then how about economic? Should the top 1% wealthiest people have 50% representation in politics? Where does that leave the other 99%? Actually, they probably have greater than 50% representation and that is one of the rots that is destroying our democracy, but at least they only get 1% of the actual voting power. They just use money to influence voters through marketing. And of course use that money directly on politicians to influence them.
Or we can divide by political ideology if you don't like differentiating by race/wealth demographics. How about commies? Should they get 50% representations? They have their own unique needs. Fascists 50%?
So why do rural people need 50% of the vote if they don't have 50% of the population? Shouldn't they do as everyone else has had to do and form coalitions to get pieces of what they want? For example, let's say Republicans are more pro rural concerns. Shouldn't the republicans also have to attract some other interests in order to win? Maybe they attract ultra religious Christians with anti-abortion stances and then also attract the wealthy with tax breaks. Then when that new coalition isn't enough, maybe they also go after white supremacists with dog whistle politics.
Shouldn't the Republicans have to attract >50% of the population to have the majority? Part of that can surely be rural people... but if they're winning the majority of seats with a minority vote, then there are a lot of people not receiving fair representation. Something has gone wrong with democracy.
|
On November 08 2018 04:39 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 04:19 brian wrote:On November 08 2018 04:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote: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. 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. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal. and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system. they could, but that wouldn’t actually follow a logical argument. their interests would be taken into account proportionally. if 20% of the people were rural voters they’d be given 20% of the voting power, unless you had just misunderstood his point. or if you think they’d deserve more, that would be an interesting conversation i think. If you give me 20% of the voting power and the 80% overrides my interests every time do I actually have representation?
So somehow all your interests are diametrically opposed to the other 80%. If you view politics as a zero sum game that is logical but to view political in such ways is inane in a democracy. Comprise and understanding should be the norm not the exception in a democracy.
They are suppose to be representatives of the same nation not competitors.
|
|
|
What are the chances Beto becomes the nominee for 2020 or will it be one of the senators
|
It’s being reported that Rosenstein is no longer overseeing the Mueller investigation.
|
This is triggered once Rosenstein is fired, not Sessions. I'm poised and ready to march and I hope all of you are too.
|
A very large minority of Americans have cast their vote in support of Trump. His next step now is to finish the Russia investigation once and for all. It is no surprise that Trump is now emboldened to do this.
Let's also not forget how ironic this is. Sessions was the only GOP senator that supported Trump as a candidate. Trump has been waiting to fire Sessions for years, taunting him to make him to resign instead. Bizarre. This will now move quickly and get ugly very fast. BTW, lets not forget that Sessions was a full blooded racist.
Rosenstein is only supervising this because Sessions recused himself. Sessions chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker can now supervise Mueller.
|
On November 08 2018 04:39 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 04:19 brian wrote:On November 08 2018 04:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote: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. 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. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal. and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system. they could, but that wouldn’t actually follow a logical argument. their interests would be taken into account proportionally. if 20% of the people were rural voters they’d be given 20% of the voting power, unless you had just misunderstood his point. or if you think they’d deserve more, that would be an interesting conversation i think. If you give me 20% of the voting power and the 80% overrides my interests every time do I actually have representation? I know this concept is completely alien to America but there is such a thing as Compromise.
There will be times when a group of people wants to pass legislation. And sometimes they will not have enough votes on their own. They can then offer your 20% something they like in return for your vote for something they like.
This strange mechanic powers most democracy's around the world that do not suffer from a 2 party system.
|
On November 08 2018 05:50 Panthous wrote:
A very large minority of Americans have cast their vote in support of Trump. His next step now is to finish the Russia investigation once and for all. It is no surprise that Trump is now emboldened to do this.
Let's also not forget how ironic this is. Sessions was the only GOP senator that supported Trump as a candidate. Trump has been waiting to fire Sessions for years, taunting him to make him to resign instead. Bizarre. This will now move quickly and get ugly very fast. BTW, lets not forget that Sessions was a full blooded racist. No one on the left is sad to see Sessions gone, they are not worried about the man, they are worried about the symbol and how this opens up Trump to try to shut down Mueller.
And Trump has never gives a rats ass about loyalty. He demands your loyalty to him but throws you over board the moment its convenient without regret.
|
On November 08 2018 05:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2018 04:39 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 04:19 brian wrote:On November 08 2018 04:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 04:05 Simberto wrote:On November 08 2018 03:47 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 08 2018 02:41 Kyadytim wrote: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. 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. Well, the simplest and fairest solution is to have a system where every vote is worth the same amount. Currently, a vote in rural nowhere is worth far more than a vote in a californian city, and due to the two-party system and gerrimandering a lot of votes are completely worthless because only the winning votes count in a given area. Simply have a system where the same amount of votes for a party leads to the same amount of seats (at least in the house if you want to keep that senate because "union of states not union of people") To me this is just basic common sense. All votes should be equal. and the rural people would tell you that their interests are not taken account because more people live in the city, all their people win and no one represents rural voters with your system. they could, but that wouldn’t actually follow a logical argument. their interests would be taken into account proportionally. if 20% of the people were rural voters they’d be given 20% of the voting power, unless you had just misunderstood his point. or if you think they’d deserve more, that would be an interesting conversation i think. If you give me 20% of the voting power and the 80% overrides my interests every time do I actually have representation? I know this concept is completely alien to America but there is such a thing as Compromise. There will be times when a group of people wants to pass legislation. And sometimes they will not have enough votes on their own. They can then offer your 20% something they like in return for your vote for something they like. This strange mechanic powers most democracy's around the world that do not suffer from a 2 party system.
Republicans at the federal level generally do not negotiate in good faith. Compromise with someone who does not negoiate in good faith is a waste of time.
|
So the acting AG wrote an opinion piece about how Mueller's investigation was a lynch mob. Also, Rosenstein is on his way to the White House according to the news, though with the replacement to Sessions, he has effectively already been replaced/fired from his role over Mueller.
|
On November 08 2018 05:50 Panthous wrote:
A very large minority of Americans have cast their vote in support of Trump. His next step now is to finish the Russia investigation once and for all. It is no surprise that Trump is now emboldened to do this.
Let's also not forget how ironic this is. Sessions was the only GOP senator that supported Trump as a candidate. Trump has been waiting to fire Sessions for years, taunting him to make him to resign instead. Bizarre. This will now move quickly and get ugly very fast. BTW, lets not forget that Sessions was a full blooded racist.
Rosenstein is only supervising this because Sessions recused himself. Sessions deputy, Matthew Whitaker can now supervise Mueller.
Regardless of if he is innocent or not, right?
Also, tbf, Trump has been signaling he would fire Sessions after the midterms for months. He would have done this regardless of whether he kept the House.
As for Muller, he is fine now that Dems have the house.
|
This basically means Rosenstein is also fired. I mean, Rosenstein is the deputy. But the chief of staff is now acting AG. But maybe Rosenstein doesn't get formally fired because he doesn't need to be.
Trump may still officially fire Rosenstein, though. Rosenstein thought in the past he was going to be fired. Maybe Trump is now so emboldened he will risk a Kelly resignation to fire both.
|
|
|
Rumor has it that Trump is kicking into high gear his attempt at ending the investigation because Mueller plans to indict Trump Jr. shortly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
