Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Ragitsu]

You could be less disingenuous, you know; regulation/control and general societal improvement go hand in hand.

 

P.S. If you're going to quote-response me three times in a row, save the implication that you're terrified of guns being taken away.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Ragitsu said:

regulation/control and general societal improvement go hand in hand

 

Up to a point. It's important to curb some of our baser tendencies, of course.

 

Then there's the question of who writes the laws. Currently, it's big business, whether directly or via PACs.

 

I'm against making any sweeping changes to our fundamental laws until we get big money out of our politics and get some politicians who actually want to make changes based on responsible stewardship instead of campaign contributions and high paying post-retirement gigs.

 

 

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Up to a point. It's important to curb some of our baser tendencies, of course.

 

Then there's the question of who writes the laws. Currently, it's big business, whether directly or via PACs.

 

I'm against making any sweeping changes to our fundamental laws until we get big money out of our politics and get some politicians who actually want to make changes based on responsible stewardship instead of campaign contributions and high paying post-retirement gigs.

 

 

So you’re just against making changes to laws then.

[Ragitsu]

8 minutes ago, Old Man said:

So you’re just against making changes to laws then.

 

Thanks for saving me the effort.

[BNakagawa]

now reporting over 2300 sq. miles cleared of invaders.

 

 

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I'm against making any sweeping changes to our fundamental laws until we get big money out of our politics and get some politicians who actually want to make changes based on responsible stewardship instead of campaign contributions and high paying post-retirement gigs.

 

 

You do realize that Big Money has been in politics probably since TV became the dominant medium, right?  And that the partisan gulf that's replaced stewardship dates back to Limbaugh, then largely locked in with Gingrich?

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, BNakagawa said:

now reporting over 2300 sq. miles cleared of invaders.

 

 

 

It really is a massive tactical win for the Ukrainian side, and a huge morale booster. As for the Russian troops, their morale was already in the toilet, and Russian command and control appears in total disarray. It's too soon to declare victory, but with continuing Western support Ukraine has a good shot at eventually achieving their stated goal of driving Russia out of all the territory they've occupied since 2014.

 

Some pundits are claiming that Vladimir Putin is facing a "Swan Lake moment." Again, it's premature to assume such a thing, but his position has to be more tenuous now, at least among Russia's other power players. Strongman politicians rarely last long if their underlings perceive weakness.

[tkdguy]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

 

Dept. of Justice Issues 40 Subpeonas in Jan. 6 Probe

[Pattern Ghost]

4 hours ago, Old Man said:

So you’re just against making changes to laws then.

 

I guess I'm against the Golden Rule (He who has the gold makes the rules.)

 

However, I didn't say all laws, did I? I said "sweeping changes," not all changes.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

You do realize that Big Money has been in politics probably since TV became the dominant medium, right?  And that the partisan gulf that's replaced stewardship dates back to Limbaugh, then largely locked in with Gingrich?

 

No, I've been sleeping this whole time. Thanks for the update. 😁

[Pattern Ghost]

4 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

Thanks for saving me the effort.

I'm curious: If you were to make one big change to our system, what would it be? No limitations. You snap your fingers, it's done. I'm in favor of getting the big money out of government in the hopes of getting actual public servants in office. What's yours?

[Lord Liaden]

That's a really good one. In addition, I'd like to see a real multiparty system, with a wider range of choices more representative of the actual diversity of the American people.

[Pariah]

58 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

That's a really good one. In addition, I'd like to see a real multiparty system, with a wider range of choices more representative of the actual diversity of the American people.

 

Despite their vast ideological and policy differences, the one thing that Republicans and Democrats invariably agree upon is that something like this can never be allowed to happen.  

[csyphrett]

Pattern Ghost took mine. I would like real time tracking on any money a politician gets. Richard Burr is supposedly facing an investigation on 80k he made which could have been due to insider trading. And if they can prove it, I would like all of his assets stripped off.

 

Also I would like to get rid of civil asset forfeiture except after the case has gone to court and the suspect has been convicted. I have seen too many stories of police just taking people's money and property on a claim and they can't get it back without going to court, and they can't get the whole sum or the property back most of the time. If you think someone is a doper, prove it. Otherwise, quit raiding people just because they have money they intend to use for things.

 

I would also like to get rid of Qualified Immunity in most cases. It shields people in authority from having to pay for intentionally bad decisions. I would rather they have a day in court and if they lose, they should pay the price instead of I'm a senator/police/judge and I can do what I want

  

CES    

[Lord Liaden]

33 minutes ago, Pariah said:

 

Despite their vast ideological and policy differences, the one thing that Republicans and Democrats invariably agree upon is that something like this can never be allowed to happen.  

 

Of course, entrenched power positions and all; but Pattern Ghost asserted that we're now in, "You snap your fingers, it's done" territory.

[Old Man]

40 minutes ago, Pariah said:

 

Despite their vast ideological and policy differences, the one thing that Republicans and Democrats invariably agree upon is that something like this can never be allowed to happen.  

I dunno, Alaska installed ranked choice voting (which is what it would take to break the two-party system). Surely if the Alaskans can do it, other states can too. 

[Ternaugh]

1 hour ago, Old Man said:

I dunno, Alaska installed ranked choice voting (which is what it would take to break the two-party system). Surely if the Alaskans can do it, other states can too. 

 

Maine and Alaska have ranked choice voting already, and I'll get the chance to vote on Nevada Question 3 in November, which is the Top-Five Ranked Choice Voting Initiative: https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Question_3,_Top-Five_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative_(2022)

[unclevlad]

12 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I'm curious: If you were to make one big change to our system, what would it be? No limitations. You snap your fingers, it's done. I'm in favor of getting the big money out of government in the hopes of getting actual public servants in office. What's yours?

 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but to clarify:  what does "get the big money out of government" even mean?  Get rid of the lobbyists?  Eliminate political contributions?  That's just the first level of issues.  What's the target?  

 

Email from NYT this morning pointed out this opinion piece:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/opinion/democracy-crisis-speech-trump.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20220914&instance_id=71899&nl=opinion-today&regi_id=101745266&segment_id=106256&te=1&user_id=618f95a4931087ea799b0e9f4a9d3344

 

Probably paywalled for many...the short-short take

 

Quote

But like every democratic victory, it was provisional. As long as there is democracy, there will be demagogy. And the ability to check power remains just that: an opportunity.

 

A comment from the email, not in the article:

 

Quote

“What we’re pushing back against is a model of democratic politics that assumes outcomes are driven by the facts,” they said in the email. The Washington Post identified over 30,000 instances of false or misleading claims by former President Donald Trump during his presidency. But as Illing and Gershberg said: “It didn’t matter. In a democracy, it’s not about what’s true so much as what’s persuasive.”

 

Make one big change to the system...interesting thought experiment.  I think most isolated ideas won't work, because the problems go much deeper.  As a possible means to break the cycle of radical polarization, shift everyone to ranked-choice voting.  I'd also consider making the Presidential race a true national election...ditch the electoral college, make it strictly the popular vote.  Ideally, make it ranked-choice...but that would require there to be a viable 3rd party candidate.

[BarretWallace]

12 hours ago, Pariah said:

 

Despite their vast ideological and policy differences, the one thing that Republicans and Democrats invariably agree upon is that something like this can never be allowed to happen.  

If recent history in my home state is any guide (well, recent from my perspective), I must sadly concur.  A few years back, we elected a former pro wrestler as our governor.  He did pretty well for his first two years, and then I think his ego got the better of him.  There were two major high points from his governorship that I recall.  Firstly (at least for his first two years), he was a breath of fresh air, a welcome break from the old, tired bickering of extreme right vs. extreme left.  Second, he sparked unprecedented cooperation between the two major parties; that the cooperation was against him is another point of discussion.  We haven't had a non-RepubliCrat governor since.

[Starlord]

I would like Escape from New York-esque mini explosives injected into every politician as soon as they take their oath of office set to detonate when they speak falsely.

 

 

Hmmm...and throw in PGs no-money idea too, I guess. 

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Starlord said:

I would like Escape from New York-esque mini explosives injected into every politician as soon as they take their oath of office set to detonate when they speak falsely.

 

You'll have no politicians left within a week (which may be your intention).

 

Quite apart from the questionable ethics of the breed overall, there are some times when politicians have a legitimate need to mislead, for diplomacy, protecting national security, maintaining public order, and the like.

[Ragitsu]

 

Can we at least agree that all politicians ought to wear full-body suits with their (corporate) sponsor logos plainly displayed for everyone to see?

[tkdguy]

I'd like to eliminate political parties altogether.

[unclevlad]

I believe there's already pretty extensive campaign financing reporting laws.  If you want to know the corporate contributors, you can find out.  

 

But this catches the direct contributions;  it does nothing for the more pernicious, IMO, PAC contributions.  Since we've got a gubernatorial election, this is still a relatively loud election season here.  The candidates aren't running many ads;  the PACs run most of em.  And in general, candidate ads are MUCH less inflammatory than PAC ads.  

 

Nice article about campaign money here:

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/02/2020-cycle-cost-14p4-billion-doubling-16/

 

 

[TrickstaPriest]

Exactly.  The PAC system is a huge issue.  A huge, billion-dollar problem now...

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

Was going to go in news, but maybe safer to post here. 

 

 

 

Spoiler