US Politics Mega-thread - Page 913

On November 08 2018 04:49 Kyadytim wrote:

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.

On November 08 2018 06:24 Simberto wrote:


Try to look at it as a system of more than two groups. This is hard for americans because you have a two party system, and thus tend to see everything as one of those two parties. Compromise does not mean "compromise with the other side". It means compromise with someone. If there are more than two sides, just find the group that gives you the best deal. But the point still works in a two party system. Find groups that are not too well represented by either party, and compromise with them.

If for example, a group that favors workers rights could compromise with a group that is all about enviromentalism. "We do these rules with regards to CO2 emissions, and in exchange unions get these additional rights." Or a group of rich capitalists could compromise with a group of hardcore christians. "We get to pay less taxes, and you guys get to keep on abusing anyone your old book tells you isn't good."

There are all sorts of compromises to be made, you just need to figure out a compromise that gets you more than 50% of the votes. But for some reason, rural voters in the US don't, because they get to have their votes count for more than those of other people.

Imagine if black peoples votes counted double. Or those of people older than 60. Or any other random set of people. All of this is straight up insane. But for some reason it is okay for the votes of rural people to count for more than those of urban people.

On November 08 2018 05:02 Lmui wrote:
The elections on rural/urban has come up in British Columbia (Canadian province where I live) where we have a referendum ongoing, with results expected early December.

https://elections.bc.ca/referendum/voting-systems/voting-systems/

Ensuring that rural areas are represented, without causing them to have disproportionately less citizens per representative is a difficult goal because demographically, more and more people are moving to cities.

On November 08 2018 08:12 Simberto wrote:
So fix the system?

The 3/5 thing is seen as pretty horrific nowadays by pretty much everyone as far as i know. Just because your system was build on bullshit from the 18th century doesn't mean you are eternally stuck to that 18th century bullshit. You managed to get rid of the 3/5 thing, you can also get rid of other bullshit, like having the votes of urban folks be less valuable. Currently you are telling city folk that they are worth 80% (Or whatever the number is, i don't actually know the exact relative value of votes from different places) as much as rural people. And for some reason that is seen as okay.

Just because something is the way it is does not mean that it should be that way, or that it needs to stay that way. Change things that are not the way they should be.

And yes, a FPTP system is generally not good. If you want more parties, you need to get rid of that. I think a lot of your current problems are based in that two party system and how it polarizes everything between those two parties. I know it is going to be hard to change that. But once again, try to fix stuff that is broken, rather than accepting it because it was always like that.

On November 08 2018 08:47 iamthedave wrote:
A) They can't get rid of Mueller.

B) There's no need because it's obvious at this point that he's not going to be taking Trump to court. We'd DEFINITELY have heard rumblings if that was coming.

C) Even the Republicans don't want Mueller fired and all of Trump's advisors keep telling him not to do it.

There's absolutely no need to be worried about the Mueller investigation. For either side. It's going to conclude, and it won't take down Trump. Republicans will likely pretend it was a waste of time, Democrats will be disappointed it didn't net the big fish. Life will go on.

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.

On November 08 2018 06:39 ticklishmusic wrote:


No he won't. I doubt even a single conservative justice would support Trump if he tried to fuck with the powers of the legislature, or anything similarly major.

Matthew G. Whitaker, the attorney general’s chief of staff, jockeyed over the last two months to replace his boss by forging a close relationship with the White House, where he was seen as a reliable political ally. On Wednesday, President Trump fired Jeff Sessions and named Mr. Whitaker acting attorney general, rewarding his loyalty.

Inside the Justice Department, senior officials, including Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, have viewed Mr. Whitaker with intense suspicion. Before his current job at the Justice Department, Mr. Whitaker, a former college football tight end, was openly hostile on television and social media toward the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and was seen by department officials as a partisan and a White House spy.

...

In August 2017, Mr. Whitaker highlighted on Twitter a Philly.com opinion article with the headline “Note to Trump’s Lawyer: Do Not Cooperate With Mueller Lynch Mob.” In his tweet, Mr. Whitaker wrote that it was “worth a read.”

The same day, as a legal commentator for CNN, he wrote an opinion article for the cable network’s website with the headline “Mueller’s Investigation of Trump Is Going Too Far.” He called on Mr. Rosenstein to “order Mueller to limit the scope of his investigation.”

...

People close to the president said Mr. Whitaker first came to the attention of Mr. Trump because he liked watching Mr. Whitaker express skepticism about aspects of Mr. Mueller’s investigation on television.

In August 2017, Mr. Whitaker appeared on CNN and said that if Mr. Mueller began investigating the Trump Organization, “I think that would be crossing the red line.”

In a CNN interview the month before, Mr. Whitaker offered a situation in which Mr. Trump could try to hobble Mr. Mueller’s investigation behind the scenes by pressuring the Justice Department to cut the special counsel’s budget.

He said that situation was “a little more stage-crafty than the blunt instrument of firing the attorney general and trying to replace him.”

...

After losing the Republican primary to Senator Joni Ernst, Mr. Whitaker became executive director of the conservative Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, known as FACT. The organization called itself a watchdog group and mainly made accusations of ethical or legal violations against Democratic politicians, including Mrs. Clinton.

During Mr. Whitaker’s tenure, the group called for investigations into, among others, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Senator Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, both Democrats, as well as Representative Ted Strickland, Democrat of Ohio.

...

Mr. Whitaker has been focused on Mrs. Clinton for years, and denounced her publicly in his role as executive director of FACT. In March 2016, he wrote an op-ed article for The Hill that argued that Obama administration officials needed to appoint a special counsel to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while working as secretary of state.

On November 08 2018 10:58 Mohdoo wrote:
Well the giant march is on for tomorrow. I'll be attending my local one. Be there!

On November 08 2018 13:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:

“Giant” ?
You’re really overestimating how much the average joe cares.Heck the majority of them usually work on a Thursday.

On November 08 2018 08:47 iamthedave wrote:
A) They can't get rid of Mueller.

B) There's no need because it's obvious at this point that he's not going to be taking Trump to court. We'd DEFINITELY have heard rumblings if that was coming.

C) Even the Republicans don't want Mueller fired and all of Trump's advisors keep telling him not to do it.

There's absolutely no need to be worried about the Mueller investigation. For either side. It's going to conclude, and it won't take down Trump. Republicans will likely pretend it was a waste of time, Democrats will be disappointed it didn't net the big fish. Life will go on.

On November 08 2018 17:21 dae wrote:


Yep don't get rid of Mueller, just quietly defund him and block him if he starts doing anything dangerous.

Just like Whittaker said he could (would?) do in an interview from 2017.

There has to be a line somewhere.