Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[DShomshak]

One proposal is based on the fact that while the Constitution ordains an Electoral College, it says nothing about how the states apportion their votes. For instance, some states apportion their electoral college votes proportionally to the votes received by candidates. So, one group proposes that each state pass a law that it will award all its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote -- this law to take effect when the number of states with this law is sufficient to guarantee victory in the electoral college.

 

Unfortunately, a majority of states currently have all-Republican governments. The Electoral College currently favors Republicans because it favors less urbanized states with lower populations. As the precinct-by-precinct map of the 2016 election results shows, the big cities are liberal and vote Democrat while the rest of the country is conservative and votes Republican. Republicans will not abandon this electoral advantage.

 

Dean Shomshak

[pinecone]

And that is the problem with "fixing" it...everybody has a dog in the hunt.

[Tech priest support]

I didn't say we could do it. I just said we should.

[Michael Hopcroft]

The President is reportedly asking whether he has the power to pardon himself if he is accused of crimes.

[Old Man]

Promptly denied by one of his spawn. Oddly enough it's an open question in constitutional law, presumably because the Founders didn't see the need to close loopholes for obvious logical fallacies.

[Michael Hopcroft]

The President is reportedly asking whether he has the power to pardon himself if he is accused of crimes.

 

 

Promptly denied by one of his spawn. Oddly enough it's an open question in constitutional law, presumably because the Founders didn't see the need to close loopholes for obvious logical fallacies.

Americans are trained to view the Founders as a group of omniscient supermen whose wisdom lasts through the ages. I think that does a disservice to them, to their cause, and to history. Yes, they did a great thing in winning American independence and crafting a form of government that has lasted more than 225 years. But they were fallible products of their time. They too engaged in logical fallacies, like a representative democracy where human beings could be owned and traded as disposable property just because their skin was the wrong color. There's a lot they didn't foresee.

[Pattern Ghost]

The Democrats tend to take a living document view of the Constitution, so I'd say that about half the voters aren't being trained that way.

[Michael Hopcroft]

The Democrats tend to take a living document view of the Constitution, so I'd say that about half the voters aren't being trained that way.

That is my view of the Constitution as well.

 

My fear is that with a 5-4 majority of conservative  ideologues on the Court, a lot of protections for minorities and the lower classes are going to be stripped away. An overturn of Roe vs Wade is inevitable is someone brings the right case. The current gerrymandering cases are certain to be decided in favor of the gerrymanderers, with possible additional damage to voting rights.

 

All that is required to is bring the right case to the Supreme Court.

[Lectryk]

That is my view of the Constitution as well.

 

My fear is that with a 5-4 majority of conservative  ideologues on the Court, a lot of protections for minorities and the lower classes are going to be stripped away. An overturn of Roe vs Wade is inevitable is someone brings the right case. The current gerrymandering cases are certain to be decided in favor of the gerrymanderers, with possible additional damage to voting rights.

 

All that is required to is bring the right case to the Supreme Court.

 

If there were to be real, worrisome, negative changes to those areas of concern, they would have happened already - the majority was conservative until Scalia's death, and they lived and worked in the same atmosphere that exists today.   All that has happened so far it that the court has returned to the same balance it had with Scalia.  Wait for the two to three possible retirements of Justices over the next four years (barring unforeseen deaths) before you get too afraid.  Kennedy leaving will do more to change the balance, or Bader Ginsburg.

 

Also remember that the key decisions dealing with the things you point out as being concerning to you (abortion, expanding voter rights and protections for minorities) were made by conservative/republican appointees.  The Justices view the law they interpret and the legal system it lives in as more important than casual politics.  They keep an eye on precedent and the historical impacts of their decisions (at least for the most part).

 

Or I'm just a pollyanna, and all the non white male folks are doomed.....

 

But the historical record doesn't support that doom and gloom view.  Progress may not happen as fast some want it to, it might even be stalled a little while, but it still happens.  Every single paradigm changes

[megaplayboy]

The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.

--from George Mason's Objections to the Constitution

 

IMO this is the bigger concern, that Trump could exercise the pardon power to pardon co-conspirators and thus protect himself.  Of course, pardoned individuals have no 5th amendment protection, and most likely still subject to perjury charges if they lie under oath.  

[Iuz the Evil]

Is it possible to grant a pardon for a crime one hasn't been accused of in court? Does that pardon prevent future charges on related crimes not mentioned?

[BoloOfEarth]

Is it possible to grant a pardon for a crime one hasn't been accused of in court? Does that pardon prevent future charges on related crimes not mentioned?

 

I'm almost positive of the first part, yes.  IIRC Nixon hadn't been charged with a crime yet when he resigned and then was pardoned by Ford.

 

I don't think the Prez even needs to name a specific crime for which he's pardoning somebody.  Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he might have committed against the US while he was President.

[Old Man]

Ford gave Nixon a blanket pardon for anything committed over a period of several years.

 

Treason gets a lot of mention whenever Russiagate comes up, and deservedly so, but the reality is that treason is pretty narrowly defined in the Constitution such that it would be really hard to bring treason charges against anyone in the White House, let alone the occupier.  For one thing, Congress has not declared war on Russia, making it difficult to define them as an enemy for purposes of the charge.*

 

On the other hand, the POTUS only has the power to pardon people for federal crimes.  If someone were, for example, charged with conspiracy to commit cybercrime in New York, a president could do nothing but rage impotently on Twitter.

 

 

 

* In my opinion, f_king with our elections is an act of war that calls for rolling tanks into Moscow, but maybe that's why I'm not running things.

[Lord Liaden]

Maybe I'm a pollyanna too, but if any of President Trump's cronies were actually convicted of a crime related to current investigations, and he pardoned them, I have to believe that would be the end of his political career. There has to be a limit to what even the hardest-line Republicans will tolerate.

[Tech priest support]

Maybe I'm a pollyanna too, but if any of President Trump's cronies were actually convicted of a crime related to current investigations, and he pardoned them, I have to believe that would be the end of his political career. There has to be a limit to what even the hardest-line Republicans will tolerate.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you but I do. I'm not sure trump could do anything to alienate his base and high rank repubs. I think he was right when he said he couild shoot (murder) people in public and not lose voters.

 

For decades the far right had demonized the left to levels that match any anti semitic propaganda. People have called democrats and liberals baby killers over abortion, traitors, devil worshippers, communists, Nazis, etc. They have written books labeling liberals and democrats as mentally ill, as plotting to destroy america, etc.

 

Look at the toxic levels of hyperbolic hate leveled at non republicans and non Christians over the last decades from fox news, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, alien Jones, Michael savage, etc. It's reached a level where a try p supporter in Texas publicly said at a trump rally that "he couldn't wait for the great liberal genocide to begin."

 

The people behind the far right and its long term agenda have spent decades portraying g democrats and liberals as literally existential threats to America, freedom, liberty, Christianity, etc. that I think tens of millions of Americans are ready to declare open violent war on anyone who isn't behind trump and are just waiting for the go command. I think even if trump suspended the constitution, declared martial law, ordered a mass round up and detention of prominent liberals and democrats his followers would cheer because they've let themselves be convinced that democrats are the source of all evil in the world.

 

I don't think the hardcore repubs will turn against trump because what direction do they have to turn? To the Democrats they've spent decades portraying as evil incarnate?

 

Sorry if I sound like a Downer here. I hope I'm wrong.

[Sociotard]

Democrats have done a fair bit of demonization themselves, to the degree violence has been inspired. Remember which party had their Congressman shot. Remember which party had their field office vandalized.

[Tech priest support]

Democrats have done a fair bit of demonization themselves, to the degree violence has been inspired. Remember which party had their Congressman shot. Remember which party had their field office vandalized.

Would that be Gabrielle Giffords? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords

 

If you want to talk about political violence in america, which party do you believe most people who burn abortion clinics and murder abortion doctors vote for?

[csyphrett]

Democrats have done a fair bit of demonization themselves, to the degree violence has been inspired. Remember which party had their Congressman shot. Remember which party had their field office vandalized.

Gabby Giffords D-Arizona. She had to retire from office. The NC Democratic office. 2010.

CES 

[Tech priest support]

Speaking of violent rhetoric...

 

http://reverepress.com/news/republican-congressman-suggests-killing-female-senators-blocked-trumpcare/

 

He's lucky one of the women he referred to didn't challenge him to a duel. An average woman is usually an average target, he has to be 1 or 2 levels easier to hit.

 

As to other violent incitement I remember republican Allen West calling oh his followers to make his democrat opponent "afraid to come out of his house" during the last election he was in. http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/gop-congressional-candidate-allen-west

 

If someone wants to claim democrats are doing the same things I'd like to see some proof.

[death tribble]

On the other hand, the POTUS only has the power to pardon people for federal crimes.  If someone were, for example, charged with conspiracy to commit cybercrime in New York, a president could do nothing but rage impotently on Twitter.

 

 

But surely that is what he is doing anyway ?

[Michael Hopcroft]

* In my opinion, f_king with our elections is an act of war that calls for rolling tanks into Moscow, but maybe that's why I'm not running things.

Have you ever tried rolling tanks into Moscow? As a wargamer, I have, and it's a task so quixotic as to be nearly impossible in a well-designed game. Even without Putin having a nuclear arsenal that w\he would not hesitate to use if foreign troops were marching on Russian soil, the distances alone lead to all sorts of issues with supply. Russia is a place where dictatorial regimes go to die. Invaders usually starve and, if they stick around too long, freeze to death. And no matter how corrupt and brutal their governments are, Russians defend their nation with incredible tenacity and resilience. Heaven help you after they push you out -- the revenge of Russian armies is a terrible thing.

 

If the Russians wrong you, you have to find other ways to retaliate. Russians may be virtually invulnerable to armies, but their economy would collapse completely if everyone stopped buying their oil and gas. But that is something the USA has very little control over. It would be up to Europe, and much of Europe doesn't care. For example, Poland's election was even worse than ours in terms of Russian influence, with the specific goal of installing a regime that would continue to purchase Russian oil and gas.

[Joe Walsh]

I think it's awesome that John McCain is heading to the Senate floor for the healthcare vote. He's everywhere and always a good Republican soldier. All that stuff about being a maverick is just branding. He votes with his party almost all the time, just like every other Republican in Congress. And it doesn't matter that Trump said horrible things about him while on the campaign trail, McCain still comes to heel when his party's leader calls him.

 

The media's so in love with the myth, they never really look at the man. He's still the same guy who was one of the Keating Five, after all.

[Old Man]

Have you ever tried rolling tanks into Moscow? As a wargamer, I have, and it's a task so quixotic as to be nearly impossible in a well-designed game. Even without Putin having a nuclear arsenal that w\he would not hesitate to use if foreign troops were marching on Russian soil, the distances alone lead to all sorts of issues with supply. Russia is a place where dictatorial regimes go to die. Invaders usually starve and, if they stick around too long, freeze to death. And no matter how corrupt and brutal their governments are, Russians defend their nation with incredible tenacity and resilience. Heaven help you after they push you out -- the revenge of Russian armies is a terrible thing.

 

If the Russians wrong you, you have to find other ways to retaliate. Russians may be virtually invulnerable to armies, but their economy would collapse completely if everyone stopped buying their oil and gas. But that is something the USA has very little control over. It would be up to Europe, and much of Europe doesn't care. For example, Poland's election was even worse than ours in terms of Russian influence, with the specific goal of installing a regime that would continue to purchase Russian oil and gas.

 

You are entirely correct, of course.  My statement about the tanks was meant more as an expression of the level of my concern with Putin's actions, not as a realistic course of action.  Rolling tanks into a nuclear-armed country is probably a non-starter to begin with, never mind the idea of starting another land war in Asia, or the track record of countries that have invaded Russia in the past.

 

Russia has some serious long term economic concerns, though.  Half their economy depends on fossil fuel sales, and while the Europeans are stuck buying it for now, they're also pushing renewables really hard precisely because they don't want to line Putin's pockets anymore. 

[megaplayboy]

Honestly, the level of economic punishment we can bring to bear is much greater than what it is now.  A ban on SWIFT banking, a trade embargo, a travel ban for all of the oligarchs...if we coordinate with the EU, the level of punishment can get pretty extreme.  Not "Siege of Lenigrad" level extreme, but deep recession and exhaustion of cash reserves level extreme.  If Putin costs the oligarchs badly enough, sooner or later they'll get rid of him.  And if the Russian people suffer enough, sooner or later they'll get rid of Putin and the oligarchs.  But it will take quite a while.  

We can also counter-cyber them, but that could get really ugly, what with shutting down power grids in each country and so forth.  

[Tech priest support]

Actually destroying Russia is pretty easy. Just crush the fossil fuel corporations that are keeping the world from developing new energy sources that are feasible right now, eliminate the need for fossil fuels and Russia implodes. It's not even a country, it's a gas station ran by organized crime with a flag and an army.

 

We could neutralize Russia, Putin and a lot of middle east terror states if we were willing to commit to a war againast fossil fuel corporations, destroy them and put a lot if their execs in orison for crimes against humanity, then do a Manhattan project on new energy sources. If fossile fuel was rendered worthless most mid east states that support terror go straight down the toilet as their sole asset, oil, becomes worthless and Russia brings up the rear as they all circle the bowl for the last time.

 

But first we have to crush the fossile fuel industry...