Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

Your question implies that GOP leadership thinks health care is broken. I'm not sure that's the case. As long as insurance companies continue to rake in profits and make campaign contributions, where's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue is that even if Democrats retake the Senate and hold the House while winning the Presidency, that still leaves the Supreme Court. They'll strike down anything that even mildly discomforts the wealthy and powerful, no matter what that will mean for average citizens.

 

On the other hand, the only way to solve that particular problem is to hold the Senate and the Presidency, so that's where it'll have to start. Probably not this time around, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, if the Democrats do take the Presidency and the Senate, they could take the nuclear option and just appoint two additional Supreme Court justices. It would be unprecedented, of course, but there's nothing that says that number has to be nine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing about starting down the path of saying "the rules don't matter," whether it's the rules of propriety or the Constitution, or anything in between.

 

Here we are, after decades of undeclared wars, rule by executive order, and an ever-expanding Executive Branch, and now the President can apparently do whatever he wants as long as his party holds one branch of Congress; the Senate Leadership can save Supreme Court Justice picks until his party has the Presidency; and so on.

 

Sure, they're all called out in media, but it doesn't matter. Because the rules don't matter. Not really. Not when it comes down to it. What matters is what We The People do to the folks who break the rules.

 

And apparently, we don't do anything to them any more, so long as they're "on our team."

 

Which is great, because I'm fully in support of this totally Constitutional way to remake the Constitution ;):

https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/01/pack-the-union-a-proposal-to-admit-new-states-for-the-purpose-of-amending-the-constitution-to-ensure-equal-representation/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The old way of doing things in government in the United States was well thought-out for two-and-a-half centuries ago, and stood the test of time remarkably well; but it's becoming clear that it's no longer adequate for the world we live in today, which the Founding Fathers could never have imagined. If America is to thrive through the current century, some bold actions to change the system may prove necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cassandra said:

Last nights Democratic Debate proved one thing above all.  

 

Tom Steyer is actually a character created by Donny Most.  Welcome back, Ralph Malph!

 

Darn it. I missed the Debates. Need to find them and catch up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cassandra said:

 

Why?  Postie wasn't there.

 

2 hours ago, Hermit said:

 

I Have no idea what that means.

 

 

 

I think Cassandra meant to say Potsie.  It was a continued riff Happy Days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cygnia said:

 

It seems the only thing making these avowed gun-rights activists politically active is any perceived infringement on the Second Amendment. Boys, if you don't stand up for all other citizens' rights, by the time the government actually comes to take your guns away you'll already have lost everything worth fighting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't read to me like it's the gun rights activists that are the problem, rather that a militia group or groups plan to use the rally as cover to act out. Now, you could point out that militia groups are very likely for gun rights, but I think we have multiple groups, with Group A being normal protesters and Group B being radicals looking to capitalize on the event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

It doesn't read to me like it's the gun rights activists that are the problem, rather that a militia group or groups plan to use the rally as cover to act out. Now, you could point out that militia groups are very likely for gun rights, but I think we have multiple groups, with Group A being normal protesters and Group B being radicals looking to capitalize on the event.

 

Given what I've seen with the Bundys and the people they attract, they're for their gun rights, not the rights of others to carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

It doesn't read to me like it's the gun rights activists that are the problem, rather that a militia group or groups plan to use the rally as cover to act out. Now, you could point out that militia groups are very likely for gun rights, but I think we have multiple groups, with Group A being normal protesters and Group B being radicals looking to capitalize on the event.

 

Agreed, and I apologize if I gave the impression I was lumping all of them together. But speaking generally, I stand by my original assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

But speaking generally, I stand by my original assertion.

 

There's certainly no shortage of single issue voters when it comes to gun rights. Or on a lot of other hot button issues. I personally see that mindset as both myopic and perfectly natural. Politicians thrive by pushing all those buttons and sowing divisiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 12:59 PM, L. Marcus said:

It wouldn't be the first time that happened, right?

 

Numbers have changed, but it has been 9, since the 1860s, I believe.  

 

Not something that I would support, if done we will be adding 2 more justices every time, they change parties of power.  DC joke-filled enough as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one major change I do support is passing a new Apportionment Act, substantially increasing the membership of the House of Representatives(and, by doing so, increasing the size of the electoral college and diluting the population distorting effect of adding two electors per state for the Senate).  It reduces the likelihood of a "fluke" EC win and popular vote loss while making the House more representative of the diversity of the population.  Third party candidates would also have a more meaningful chance of winning, running in smaller congressional districts.  And I'd package it with provisions for non-partisan, independent redistricting commissions to cut way down on partisan gerrymandering.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...