Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[薔薇語]

I seriously doubt that a Republican party that was unable to stand up to Trump during the campaign will find the courage to do so now that he is president. The Democrats might make a stand, but there's not a lot they can do until after the midterms.

 

It takes 2 Republican senators to block absolutely all legislation from their party. And that is assuming they nix the Filibuster as you wanted. 

 

Soar. 

[Lord Liaden]

Well, some people here have suggested the American political system will have to hit rock bottom before there'll be motivation to reform it.

 

I don't think we've seen rock bottom yet. But we may.

[薔薇語]

I am listening to "This America Life" and something occurs to me: there was a fair deal of Executive Orders to act as stop gaps for difficult legislation. The example that comes up is regarding the legality of people who were brought here as young children and have no ties to foreign life. If President Elect Trump chooses, with but a stroke of a pen he can remove their ability to seek visas. There is nothing the Democrats can do on this issue because President Trump decided he give himself the power to write such policies outside of congressional oversight. 

It is quite the shame the President and the Democrats allowed such power to be diverted to the presidency alone. No checks. No balances. No recourse. This is why Libertarians get so worked up by the ever expanding Executive. Because this guy might be good, but who knows what the next one will be like. 

Let's hope the Republicans and Democrats can pass some sane immigration policy and we can get some withdraw of power from the executive that that a single election can't put so many families at risk just to have quick and extremely temporary fixes. 

Soar. 

[TheDarkness]

It takes 2 Republican senators to block absolutely all legislation from their party. And that is assuming they nix the Filibuster as you wanted. 

 

Soar. 

The question is, are they willing to face their party fielding alternative candidates running against them? Because that is likely what they will face if they oppose many of the key issues where they differ from Trump.

[TheDarkness]

I am listening to "This America Life" and something occurs to me: there was a fair deal of Executive Orders to act as stop gaps for difficult legislation. The example that comes up is regarding the legality of people who were brought here as young children and have no ties to foreign life. If President Elect Trump chooses, with but a stroke of a pen he can remove their ability to seek visas. There is nothing the Democrats can do on this issue because President Trump decided he give himself the power to write such policies outside of congressional oversight. 

 

It is quite the shame the President and the Democrats allowed such power to be diverted to the presidency alone. No checks. No balances. No recourse. This is why Libertarians get so worked up by the ever expanding Executive. Because this guy might be good, but who knows what the next one will be like. 

 

Let's hope the Republicans and Democrats can pass some sane immigration policy and we can get some withdraw of power from the executive that that a single election can't put so many families at risk just to have quick and extremely temporary fixes. 

 

Soar. 

The power of executive orders has been in place for ages. For example, since the Johnson administration, the presidents with the least executive orders are Ford, HW Bush, and Obama.

 

Further, there ARE checks and balances. Court decisions can alter them, and new legislation can affect them. New executive orders can also alter them, which happens often. The next president changing them, and the supreme court making a decision against them especially, led to their decreased, not increased, use over time.

 

Further, the president cannot simply make anything they want an executive order.

[TheDarkness]

Well, some people here have suggested the American political system will have to hit rock bottom before there'll be motivation to reform it.

 

I don't think we've seen rock bottom yet. But we may.

I really wish there were a way to allow for more parties at the national level that actually worked.

[Clonus]

I am listening to "This America Life" and something occurs to me: there was a fair deal of Executive Orders to act as stop gaps for difficult legislation. The example that comes up is regarding the legality of people who were brought here as young children and have no ties to foreign life. If President Elect Trump chooses, with but a stroke of a pen he can remove their ability to seek visas. There is nothing the Democrats can do on this issue because President Trump decided he give himself the power to write such policies outside of congressional oversight. 

 

It is quite the shame the President and the Democrats allowed such power to be diverted to the presidency alone.

 

Diverted?  That is a power the presidents have had since the start.  It's legit even if Trump seems like he might misuse it.  

[薔薇語]

Diverted?  That is a power the presidents have had since the start.  It's legit even if Trump seems like he might misuse it.  

 

The scope of what can be done with an Executive order has broadened. Same with the leeway agencies have to write and interpret regulation. Deciding immigration policy through executive order - creating a class of immigrant eligible for a new visa without Congressional authority is an expansion of that power. 

 

Soar. 

[Clonus]

The scope of what can be done with an Executive order has broadened. 

 

That's beside the point.  Presidents have always had the authority to deny visas or entry to noncitizens if they think they'll be a problem.   

[薔薇語]

That's beside the point.  Presidents have always had the authority to deny visas or entry to noncitizens if they think they'll be a problem.   

Presidents have not always been able to unilaterally create a whole visa program. That is an extension of power. 

 

Soar. 

[TheDarkness]

Have the rules for executive orders actually changed?

 

I mean, considering that they were used years previously to inter Japanese-Americans, I'm wondering if it's more a matter of how broadly a particular president uses them, and that the rules for them have not really changed.

 

Bush, for example, created Homeland Security by way of executive order.

[TheDarkness]

Interesting article on the topic:

 

http://patimes.org/obama-limits-government-executive-order/

[Nolgroth]

President Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation in 1963?!? Man that dude was old.

 

(Typos will get you every time.)

[gewing]

But we all knew that already, hence the multiple fake IDs we all have.

Ruhr roh raggy...

[Hermit]

False IDs? I, Doctor  Manuel  Kong Ivansolich, will not rest until I end this horrible practice!

 

 

EDIT: #### forgot to change accounts!

[Iuz the Evil]

 

John Oliver season finale. Very spot on. I particularly enjoyed the montage at the end.

[Cancer]

All I can think is that the citizenry of the UK and the US are for some inexplicable reason engaged in a massive, to-the-death no-limit stupid-off.

 

"YEAH?!??? We'll see your Brexit and Boaty McBoatface and raise you a Trump! Top that, {insert collection of ethnic & religious slurs here}."

[aylwin13]

I still keep hoping that someone will run in yelling, "Cut! That's a wrap!"

[death tribble]

All I can think is that the citizenry of the UK and the US are for some inexplicable reason engaged in a massive, to-the-death no-limit stupid-off.

 

"YEAH?!??? We'll see your Brexit and Boaty McBoatface and raise you a Trump! Top that, {insert collection of ethnic & religious slurs here}."

Sadly you might be right

[Iuz the Evil]

Sadly you might be right

Your move, Britain.

[Nolgroth]

What happens when make it to Checkmate?  Can we name it Chexit?

[Cancer]

WW3, probably.

[Sociotard]

I really wish there were a way to allow for more parties at the national level that actually worked.

There are. Proportional methods. They wouldn't even require much of a change, really. No amendments needed.

 

Right now we have first past the post, and we have to, because we only have one seat per district. But the constitution doesn't say first past the post, or one seat per district, or to use districts. Here's the relevant bits:

 

 

Article 1, Section 2

1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Article 1, Section 4

1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 

 

 

So, the constitutions didn't say that states had to divide up into one-seat districts. It gives most of the power for deciding the qualifications for representatives to the states, excepting what is already in the constitution. It gives states power to say how their representatives are chosen, but allows Congress itself can overrule them, even without an amendment.

 

So, there's nothing constitutionally stopping us from putting in a proportional or semi-proportional system. Of course, it'd be state by state, rather than nationally, but that's okay. I think that's how Germany does it. I'm a big fan of their Semi-Proportional method. (I'm not presenting it here for the sake of simplicity)

 

So, parties would create lists of representatives, then citizens would vote for parties, and the seats would be apportioned. We'd see the two big parties break up, since Green and Libertarian would suddenly have a chance.

 

As a bonus, suddenly the people on that list would be different sorts of politicians. Parties could pepper their lists with people who would be unelectable on their own (ugly, abrasive, whatever) but who had particular skills or knowledge that they wanted in their committees.

 

So, all we need to do is ask the two leading parties to commit organizational suicide. Easy, right!

[Old Man]

[Cancer]

Finally, the only serious (?) comment I will make here.

 

About eight and a half years ago, kind of early-to-mid-summer of 2008, in I think a deleted 2008 election thread, I expressed reservations about both of the two Democratic front-running candidates, Obama and Ms Clinton. I had fears about Obama which, thankfully, did not happen. But I think I called Clinton correctly. I remember that I said "I think she's unelectable", because the Clinton name would be enough to trigger a generation of reinforced hate that it would bring out people who had never voted before and never would again, but would show up to vote against HER.

 

I wish I had not been so foresighted.