Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[TrickstaPriest]

It's pretty scary to me that just about every thing I was going to yell at my local friends about Trump effectively came true.  I was well fed up after the coronavirus, but held back for the sake of friends.

 

I had a whole litany of rants from "Trump has his claws into his base and there's no way in hell he's letting go" to "just the crapshow of him spreading conspiracy -before- the 2020 election was going to make every election in the future become a stupid mess".  We'll just have to see how bad it gets...

[unclevlad]

7 hours ago, Armitage said:

 

 

This is likely to be our future now, thanks to Trump.  A prominent Republican loses and they immediately start shouting fraud, demanding an investigation, filing lawsuits, etc.

 

In Arizona, Kari Lake was pushing election fraud even after she won.

 

Part of this is Republican fearmongering at its finest.  Take an issue they can rant on, and even when it doesn't apply, bring it forward to reinforce the position.  

[Armitage]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

In Arizona, Kari Lake was pushing election fraud even after she won.

 

 

 

So was Trump in 2016.  He won, but lost the Popular vote, so he insisted that millions of fraudulent votes had been cast for his opponent and he had actually won the Popular vote too.

[unclevlad]

I'd forgotten that.  From 

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-fraud-popular-vote

 

Quote

Trump has been railing over the weekend against a recount effort led by the Green Party, that he has dubbed a “scam.” Green Party officials filed for a recount in Wisconsin on Friday after reports of possible voting discrepancies in areas that used paper ballots versus those where electronic voting took place.

 

In hindsight, this is more interesting than we realized.  Trump holds grudges, and they're largely the only things he really holds onto.  (Well, ok, and his self-aggrandizement.)  So one wonders if his railing against voting machines maybe has its roots here.  It's twisted logic, I'll grant, but if his opponents *liked* the electronic votes, then....how can he?  And he definitely seems the type to dwell on insults.  It could simply be that the OBVIOUS result...he's the most popular person in history, how could he NOT have won the popular vote????  Then bring in the Green Party's challenge to his win.  

 

If Trump gets the nomination in '24, we're so hosed.  If he wins......unmitigated disaster.  Doubt anyone here will argue that...only the level of the wreckage.  BUT, even if he loses, we'll be in for a potential constitutional crisis.  Will states refuse to follow the popular vote?  The volume of litigation and push for recounts will keep the issue on the front burner WELL into December.  How many local and state elections boards will refuse to certify?  How much intimidation...perhaps not just threats, but actual violence...will election officials feel?  

 

Even on election day, voting will, in places at least, be SERIOUSLY uncomfortable, as Trump supporters attempt to intimidate, and in places, actively interfere?

 

The '20 election cycle was bad.  Locally, since we elect the governor, it's bad;  the Republican campaign is its usual.  But if Trump's running again in '24, it'll make '20 look like as polite as a little girls' tea party.

[tkdguy]

And he also said he plans to pardon the January 6 rioters if reelected. Yet another reason (as if we need more) to keep him out of the White House.

[unclevlad]

20 minutes ago, tkdguy said:

And he also said he plans to pardon the January 6 rioters if reelected. Yet another reason (as if we need more) to keep him out of the White House.

 

We don't.  Because as bad as this would be in many ways, let's face it...I figure he'll do a dozen things that are FAR worse in the first year.

[tkdguy]

Tell me about it!

[Ternaugh]

14 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I'd forgotten that.  From 

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-fraud-popular-vote

 

 

In hindsight, this is more interesting than we realized.  Trump holds grudges, and they're largely the only things he really holds onto.  (Well, ok, and his self-aggrandizement.)  So one wonders if his railing against voting machines maybe has its roots here.  It's twisted logic, I'll grant, but if his opponents *liked* the electronic votes, then....how can he?  And he definitely seems the type to dwell on insults.  It could simply be that the OBVIOUS result...he's the most popular person in history, how could he NOT have won the popular vote????  Then bring in the Green Party's challenge to his win.  

 

If Trump gets the nomination in '24, we're so hosed.  If he wins......unmitigated disaster.  Doubt anyone here will argue that...only the level of the wreckage.  BUT, even if he loses, we'll be in for a potential constitutional crisis.  Will states refuse to follow the popular vote?  The volume of litigation and push for recounts will keep the issue on the front burner WELL into December.  How many local and state elections boards will refuse to certify?  How much intimidation...perhaps not just threats, but actual violence...will election officials feel?  

 

Even on election day, voting will, in places at least, be SERIOUSLY uncomfortable, as Trump supporters attempt to intimidate, and in places, actively interfere?

 

The '20 election cycle was bad.  Locally, since we elect the governor, it's bad;  the Republican campaign is its usual.  But if Trump's running again in '24, it'll make '20 look like as polite as a little girls' tea party.

 

The main reason that electronic voting, early voting, and vote by mail are targeted by Trump and the Republicans is that they are generally seen to make voting easier. It's really hard to disenfranchise people when there are multiple ways that they can vote.

[unclevlad]

10 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

The main reason that electronic voting, early voting, and vote by mail are targeted by Trump and the Republicans is that they are generally seen to make voting easier. It's really hard to disenfranchise people when there are multiple ways that they can vote.

 

Fair enough...and sound argument for the Republicans generally.  For Trump specifically?  I always look for the convoluted, self-interest rationalizations over long-term tactical thinking.

[pinecone]

Food for thought for pro gun control supporters. A mass stabbing. Mass killing is a social issue, when society creates outcast, society cannot expect them to follow sociatial norms. A problem we all need to find solutions for.

[unclevlad]

20 minutes ago, pinecone said:

Food for thought for pro gun control supporters. A mass stabbing. Mass killing is a social issue, when society creates outcast, society cannot expect them to follow sociatial norms. A problem we all need to find solutions for.

 

So instead of 10 dead and 15 in the hospital, which is horrible enough to be sure...you'd rather it was 20 or so dead, and who knows how many in the hospital?

Secondary:  how many mass stabbings have there been, versus mass shootings?  

 

A stabbing event will almost always be more contained.  This one is horrific...and probably wouldn't be as bad had guns been used.  Knives do tend to be quieter.  But it's an aberration among mass attack, I think.  Pre-dawn, planned, one might think targeted.  You'd think this would be a more contained, targeted incident.  Sounds like the cops suspect there were specific targets, and the rest were "hey, while we're at it...."  

 

Now, if your point is that gun control is not the be-all and end-all...I completely agree.  The point of gun control is to make it less easy to pull off a Pulse, Mandalay Bay, or Parkland.  That when guns are in an incident, lethality is FAR higher...the damage to any target tends to be higher, and more victims can be targeted in a short period of time.  It doesn't address the root causes;  it simply hopes to disenable them to a degree.  Trying to actually prevent incidents like this in the first place is far, far more difficult.  Who knows when someone transitions from frustrated and angry to murderous?  Presumption of innocence is a MAJOR problem here.  What constitutes sufficient cause to detain?

 

And, a really, REALLY cynical perspective?  Some Republicans love these.  Adore them...in private.  Because they advance the progression to a police state that they want. 

[Pariah]

An interesting little opinion piece in The Atlantic:

 

Biden Laid the Trap. Trump Walked Into It.

[Old Man]

6 hours ago, pinecone said:

Food for thought for pro gun control supporters. A mass stabbing. Mass killing is a social issue, when society creates outcast, society cannot expect them to follow sociatial norms. A problem we all need to find solutions for.

 

If knives are just as lethal as guns, then no one needs guns for self defense.  They can just use a knife.

 

Social issues do need to be addressed, though.  In America, one party seems to be better than the other when it comes to actually funding social work and mental health.

[pinecone]

7 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

If knives are just as lethal as guns, then no one needs guns for self defense.  They can just use a knife.

 

Social issues do need to be addressed, though.  In America, one party seems to be better than the other when it comes to actually funding social work and mental health.

I think making it a political football prevents any solution being found. Society needs to alter its norms, mental health and social work cure symptoms, not causes.

[assault]

On 9/4/2022 at 11:56 AM, Ranxerox said:

 

That is interesting.  So, in races with 20+ candidates, how deep do most people go in their rankings?  Do they just stick to their top 3 or do they take out to their top six or what?

OK, I can only answer this in terms of the Australian federal system. States and Territories each have their own quirks. Also, I will use the Australian terminology of preferential voting - essentially ranked choice or instant run-off voting. This will be long.

First of all, Australia has a different party system to the US. Parties pick their candidates through their own internal processes. There are no primaries.

As a result, there is only one candidate per party in lower house elections (House of Representatives - name stolen from the US, of course).

This reduces the number of candidates. 5-8 is fairly typical. That's usually the major parties, a couple of "minor" parties that have a real chance of getting people elected somewhere, if only in the Senate, a couple of minor parties with no chance, and an Independent or three.

 

At times, some states have used "optional preferential" systems, where you can vote for as many candidates as you like and still have your vote counted. So a major party supporter might only vote 1 for the candidate of their own party. A minor party supporter might vote 1 for their candidate, and then 2,3... for other unobjectionable candidates, finally ending with the major party they hate the least. Some people might allocate preferences for all candidates, if only for the pleasure of putting the most obnoxious candidate last.

Most of the time though, including in federal elections, you have to allocate a preference for each candidate. That means, for example, you have to list each candidate from, say, 1 to 8.

That's no big deal. In theory you could have 20 candidates, but in practice you don't.

So far, so good. Now we get to the Senate...

I'm going to skip the Territories (Australian Capital Territory (Canberra) and the Northern Territory (where Bazza lives)) and focus on the 6 States.

Each State has 12 Senators. Usually half are up for election each time. (There are times when all 12 are - but this is exceptional.)

Senate elections use a mix of proportional and preferential voting. Typically, that results in the election of three candidates each from the "left" and the "right". It's rare these days for any party to have a majority in the Senate - getting legislation through involves negotiation and accepting amendments.

Because of the proportional element, it's easier for minor parties and independents to get elected to the Senate. Using the "typical" 3-3 split I mentioned above, that often means that the major parties will get two candidates up each, with the remaining seats going to minors or independents on the left or right.

That relative ease of election means that a lot of candidates run for the Senate. Ballot papers can be up to two metres/yards long! Most of these candidates are complete unknowns with no chance, single issue candidates and so on.

This is also where parties run multiple candidates. Typically these are listed in columns on the ballot paper, in an order chosen by the party. A candidate at the top of the list usually has a better chance of being elected than one at the bottom, although upsets are possible.

With (say) 132 candidates, most of whom you've never heard of, listing them from 1 to 132 is a chore, and fairly meaningless when you have no basis for ordering them.

At that point, there is the option of voting "above the line" or "below the line".

"Below the line" voting is fairly rare in practice. Basically, you chose a minimum of 12 candidates in the order in which you prefer them, and your vote is valid. Yes, you can vote for all 132 candidates this way. Or you can vote for a party candidate that's at the bottom of the list, and so on.

"Above the line" works on the fact that the candidates are listed in columns. Even the independents. (There's an "ungrouped" column or two for people who aren't running alongside anyone else.)
 

When you vote above the line you are allocating preferences between different columns. I think you have to choose at least six such groups. In that case, the order of candidates in each column matters - your vote goes initially to the first candidate. If they get elected, surplus votes go to the second candidate and so on.

The maths here gets weird, and I'm not going to go into the details of quotas and such. It takes a lot longer to count Senate votes than House of Reps ones, but you can usually guesstimate the results on election night with reasonable accuracy.

Well that's all as clear as mud, but yes, there are ways to deal with huge numbers of candidates without brain bleed or resorting to two rounds of voting.

And "third/fourth/fifth parties" have a reasonable chance of getting elected where they have genuine support.

 

 

[death tribble]

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Secondary:  how many mass stabbings have there been, versus mass shootings?  

There were a couple over here which were terrorist related and thus made the news.

[death tribble]

Liz Truss is our new PM. I thought Sunak would get it. She can't be worse than Boris, can she ? 

[pinecone]

27 minutes ago, death tribble said:

Liz Truss is our new PM. I thought Sunak would get it. She can't be worse than Boris, can she ? 

Hahahahahaha! Oh, bollocks you were serious,,,

8 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

If knives are just as lethal as guns, then no one needs guns for self defense.  They can just use a knife.

 

Social issues do need to be addressed, though.  In America, one party seems to be better than the other when it comes to actually funding social work and mental health.

To respond again to the same post: Guns aren't more lethal per se, but they are safer to use for self defense. A weak/small/vulnerable person is generally Worse off using a knife. So one could say that advocating against guns is "able-ist".

[Ragitsu]

One could say that, but then one would be entirely silly. Not only are firearms force multipliers, but they also making killing easier from a psychological standpoint.

[Ranxerox]

9 hours ago, assault said:

OK, I can only answer this in terms of the Australian federal system. States and Territories each have their own quirks. Also, I will use the Australian terminology of preferential voting - essentially ranked choice or instant run-off voting. This will be long.

First of all, Australia has a different party system to the US. Parties pick their candidates through their own internal processes. There are no primaries.

<snip> 

Senate elections use a mix of proportional and preferential voting. Typically, that results in the election of three candidates each from the "left" and the "right". It's rare these days for any party to have a majority in the Senate - getting legislation through involves negotiation and accepting amendments.
<snip>
With (say) 132 candidates, most of whom you've never heard of, listing them from 1 to 132 is a chore, and fairly meaningless when you have no basis for ordering them.

At that point, there is the option of voting "above the line" or "below the line".

"Below the line" voting is fairly rare in practice. Basically, you chose a minimum of 12 candidates in the order in which you prefer them, and your vote is valid. Yes, you can vote for all 132 candidates this way. Or you can vote for a party candidate that's at the bottom of the list, and so on.

"Above the line" works on the fact that the candidates are listed in columns. Even the independents. (There's an "ungrouped" column or two for people who aren't running alongside anyone else.)
 

When you vote above the line you are allocating preferences between different columns. I think you have to choose at least six such groups. In that case, the order of candidates in each column matters - your vote goes initially to the first candidate. If they get elected, surplus votes go to the second candidate and so on.

The maths here gets weird, and I'm not going to go into the details of quotas and such. It takes a lot longer to count Senate votes than House of Reps ones, but you can usually guesstimate the results on election night with reasonable accuracy.

Well that's all as clear as mud, but yes, there are ways to deal with huge numbers of candidates without brain bleed or resorting to two rounds of voting.

And "third/fourth/fifth parties" have a reasonable chance of getting elected where they have genuine support.

 

 

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain Australia's system to me. 

 

It sounds like, that for your House of Representatives  you do a have primary of sorts.  It is just a backroom primary in which most people don't get to vote.  Once upon a time, I would have decried that system as being undemocratic.  However, I know that the Republican leadership really didn't want want Trump as their candidate and would like to get rid of a number of Trump clones from their legislative ranks.   So, I am not sure where I stand on party officials deciding who gets to run and who doesn't.

 

As for your Senate selection process, it is way too complicated for us 'Mericans. 

 

So, I think we are probably stuck with our primaries, even though they do draw out the election process interminably.  😟

[unclevlad]

14 hours ago, Pariah said:

An interesting little opinion piece in The Atlantic:

 

Biden Laid the Trap. Trump Walked Into It.

 

Let's hope.

 

The same writer penned an article about Biden's speech;  the link is in there.  One quote from it:

 

Quote

Whatever was true four, five, or six years ago, in 2022 Trumpism cannot be regarded as some anomalous strain in U.S. politics. What began as deviation has become mainstream. What once could be minimized as a recessive tendency within the Republican Party has become the dominant one.

 

Elsewhere....

 

2 hours ago, pinecone said:

Hahahahahaha! Oh, bollocks you were serious,,,

To respond again to the same post: Guns aren't more lethal per se, but they are safer to use for self defense. A weak/small/vulnerable person is generally Worse off using a knife. So one could say that advocating against guns is "able-ist".

 

They aren't?  It's not easy to inflict a deep or dangerous wound with a knife.  It can happen, yes, but it's not easy.  Granted, many gunshot wounds will be in relatively low-lethality places, but any torso hit has a much higher chance, I believe, of requiring emergency surgery.  A physically non-threatening person with a knife...yes, they're still likely non-threatening.  But a scenario where a substantial percentage is carrying?  How many of them have good training, not only in weapons operation, but in practicing good fire discipline, in keeping a cool head?  Suddenly you have several people brandishing a gun, say right after shots are fired.  Who's the shooter???  I'll grant that this spiraling is probably quite unlikely, but if it does happen, it may well be seriously bloody.

 

And you're only looking at the defensive side.  An attacker with a knife in most situations can be dealt with.  He has to close.  Perhaps there are items nearby for defense...even a chair.  If the attacker focuses on on one person, others can often scramble away.  It will take more time, which should generally lead to lower injuries and casualties before responders can arrive.  None of this holds true when the nutjob has a gun, or worse, multiple guns a la Uvalde.

[pinecone]

5 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

One could say that, but then one would be entirely silly. Not only are firearms force multipliers, but they also making killing easier from a psychological standpoint.

Silly how so? A world without guns is a world where the strong rule, and the weak obey. Definately "able-ist". A woman that chooses to fight with a gun has a decent chance, without the chances are very poor indeed. What about disabled persons? Are they to be left to the wolves? The supreme court has found that the police have no obligation to protect, so who do you propose for this service?

[Lord Liaden]

22 hours ago, pinecone said:

Food for thought for pro gun control supporters. A mass stabbing. Mass killing is a social issue, when society creates outcast, society cannot expect them to follow sociatial norms. A problem we all need to find solutions for.

 

Not really. It's disingenuous to refer to this as a "mass killing." This was a "killing spree." The victims were found in thirteen separate locations. It's extremely improbable that knife wielders could have closed with and killed that many people all at once in one area, whereas that's common with mass shootings, given a gun's greater range.

 

I'd also like to point out that this took place in my country of Canada, where gun laws are fairly strict, and it's much easier to obtain a concealable knife than a concealable gun.

  

14 minutes ago, pinecone said:

Silly how so? A world without guns is a world where the strong rule, and the weak obey. Definately "able-ist". A woman that chooses to fight with a gun has a decent chance, without the chances are very poor indeed. What about disabled persons? Are they to be left to the wolves? The supreme court has found that the police have no obligation to protect, so who do you propose for this service?

 

You sound like someone who's never been attacked with a knife, or seen someone attacked. Against flesh or most clothing, strength has little bearing on damage done, it's the edge and point that do the work. Speed and skill are much more important. Unless you're talking about knifing something like a bear, with thick fur and muscle, in which case strength definitely helps.

[Hermit]

Every time I think Trump might be facing justice... *grumble*

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/05/special-master-mar-a-lago-documents-00054814

[BNakagawa]

the Teflon Don(ald).