Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama.
Right, but under Obama that ratio was mostly in opposition and was there beforehand. Not that the court has some sort of duty to be in opposition to the executive branch, but ultimately the point was that if Trump's actions aren't considered sufficient, he's got leverage on all the other branches of government to make doing something about it rather difficult.
Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
Aye, but most don't have a gigantic private business empire going into it, and just handing that off to the kids or other close immediate family members isn't really "divesting" as most people would see it.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Also, the mods have an incredible bias toward certain viewpoints. From conversations with others I has become abundantly clear that liberals are suspended for being "rude" and conservatives are not. Personally, I'd rather see that addressed.
This thread is not the place to debate forum policy, but as someone who has been banned by the mods for being rude I can say I totally deserved it each and every time, and I know they have banned conservative members for doing the same.
Agreed... as someone who's been baned (if you're here long enough, you'd know what I spelt it like that), I deserved it.
Also, the mods aren't SJW-nazi-ish... they have a tough job and it's simple courtesyto abide by the forum's tenets and rules.
Btw, can anyone help me out with what Snowden let out?
Snowden in 2013 released classified files to The Guardian and The Washington Post pertaining to the NSA's PRISM program.
...
“Due to the Snowden leaks and other disclosures, terrorists also have a great understanding of how we seek to conduct surveillance including our methods, our tactics and the scope and scale of our efforts. They’ve altered the ways in which they communicate and this has led to a decrease in collection,” Mr. Rasmussen said at a February 12 hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“We have specific examples which I believe we have shared with the committee and the committee staff in classified session — specific examples of terrorists who have adopted greater security measures such as using various new types of encryption, terrorists who have dropped or changed email addresses, and terrorists who have simply stopped communicating in ways they had before, in part because they understand how we collected,” he said.
...
Vulnerability is the price of a free and open society. If we are more vulnerable to terrorists because of our constitutional rights, I'm ok with that. The option is trading rights for security...and we all know that old yarn.
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
ender502 wrote: Though, when Manning dis give info to WikiLeaks at least they seemed to actual audit the material rather than just a straight dump.
Actually the reason Snowden didn't give information to WikiLeaks is because WikiLeaks is incredibly reckless with information. For those who do not know Julian Assange has a very radical view of government transparency (namely that there shouldn't be any such thing as a "secret" at all, government or otherwise). WikiLeaks has been blasted many times by mainstream news and officials for their habit of dumping information onto web with no editing, no verification, and no consideration for the consequences. It's why the Panama Papers weren't given to WikiLeaks, and it's why WikiLeaks basically doesn't get information of real worth from anyone but Russians XD
Just as a basic example, when releasing the diplomatic cables given to them by Manning, WikiLeaks allowed into the public sphere the names of informants who were informing on things that could get them killed should the people they were informing on know they were informing us of important information (I'll be honest I just wanted to see how many times I could squeeze "inform" into that sentence). In another instance they published files that contained the names, social security numbers, and credit card numbers of Federal employees. There was literally no point to releasing that information. It was not a substantial contribution to the "issue" WikiLeaks was leaking on. WikiLeaks has publicly released the names of homosexuals who live in Saudi Arabia (one guess what happens to homosexuals there).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 19:03:03
If she had any interest in whistle-blowing over a specific case or instances of what she viewed as misconduct in Iraq... there were ample channels available for her to take that up the chain or reached out to the IG for whistle-blower status. If, however, she received no satisfaction there... she could of pulled out the specific videos, instances and communications and then went to press, asking for anonymity from the reporter. She'd still be breaking the law, but at least she'd have a case...
Her superiors discouraged her from bringing up the videos she had seen and there was too much material for it to be reasonable that she covertly review everything. I don't care that laws were broken because laws aren't inherently just. A state that tries to cover up killings of civilians does not deserve secrecy. Secrecy requires trust and the US does not deserve that trust.
Her superiors discouraged her from bringing up the videos she had seen and there was too much material for it to be reasonable that she covertly review everything. I don't care that laws were broken because laws aren't inherently just. A state that tries to cover up killings of civilians does not deserve secrecy. Secrecy requires trust and the US does not deserve that trust.
Except the military hadn't covered up the deaths of civilians. The cases Manning released information on (and the WikiLeaks bragged about "breaking") were already public knowledge. There were court cases in progress for them, official investigations, and news reports, all already in the public sphere (I'm assuming you're referring to the 2007 Baghdad Airstrike). The issue wasn't that the government was covering them up, it was that the American public didn't care until the story became a drama laden mess. The only thing WikiLeaks changed about that incident was that the video itself became public, but the incident was already known and had been for years.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama.
Right, but under Obama that ratio was mostly in opposition and was there beforehand. Not that the court has some sort of duty to be in opposition to the executive branch, but ultimately the point was that if Trump's actions aren't considered sufficient, he's got leverage on all the other branches of government to make doing something about it rather difficult.
Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
Aye, but most don't have a gigantic private business empire going into it, and just handing that off to the kids or other close immediate family members isn't really "divesting" as most people would see it.
I don't think you'll see an ardently politically biased justice get confirmed by the senate. The Republicans don't have a large majority in the Senate and if they want to do well in the midterms they can't afford to push any extreme candidates. I think we're most likely to get a nominee like Roberts, who's been more of a mixed bag than a consistent "conservative."
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 19:27:17
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama.
Right, but under Obama that ratio was mostly in opposition and was there beforehand. Not that the court has some sort of duty to be in opposition to the executive branch, but ultimately the point was that if Trump's actions aren't considered sufficient, he's got leverage on all the other branches of government to make doing something about it rather difficult.
Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
Aye, but most don't have a gigantic private business empire going into it, and just handing that off to the kids or other close immediate family members isn't really "divesting" as most people would see it.
I don't think you'll see an ardently politically biased justice get confirmed by the senate. The Republicans don't have a large majority in the Senate and if they want to do well in the midterms they can't afford to push any extreme candidates. I think we're most likely to get a nominee like Roberts, who's been more of a mixed bag than a consistent "conservative."
Depends on if the Trump peeps want the Senate to nuke the filibuster on SCoTUS picks...
If he picks ANYONE on his published list, then expect that's what's going to happen... especially if it's William Pryor or Diane Sykes.
The *only* person on this list that MAY have a chance is Senator Mike Lee... and that's because the 'Senate Club' don't usually block their own members from moving on...
If it's not on this list, then expect someone like John Roberts.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
It's about the only thing he could do outside of simply outright selling it...
The only thing I think that could make it 'better', is for Trump to hire someone like Mitt Romney, and give him COMPLETE control of any/all decisions over his companies. But, then again, he wouldn't want to shut out his kids from running the company.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 19:13:43
If she had any interest in whistle-blowing over a specific case or instances of what she viewed as misconduct in Iraq... there were ample channels available for her to take that up the chain or reached out to the IG for whistle-blower status. If, however, she received no satisfaction there... she could of pulled out the specific videos, instances and communications and then went to press, asking for anonymity from the reporter. She'd still be breaking the law, but at least she'd have a case...
Her superiors discouraged her from bringing up the videos she had seen and there was too much material for it to be reasonable that she covertly review everything. I don't care that laws were broken because laws aren't inherently just. A state that tries to cover up killings of civilians does not deserve secrecy. Secrecy requires trust and the US does not deserve that trust.
That's because the footage that Manning saw wasn't nearly as egregious as it was made out to be. Insurgents engaged US troops in a gunfight in an area full of civilians and consequently some civilians died I the fighting, it's inevitable and even desirable for the insurgency side that there are civilian casualties in urban guerilla warfare.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama.
Right, but under Obama that ratio was mostly in opposition and was there beforehand. Not that the court has some sort of duty to be in opposition to the executive branch, but ultimately the point was that if Trump's actions aren't considered sufficient, he's got leverage on all the other branches of government to make doing something about it rather difficult.
Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
Aye, but most don't have a gigantic private business empire going into it, and just handing that off to the kids or other close immediate family members isn't really "divesting" as most people would see it.
I don't think you'll see an ardently politically biased justice get confirmed by the senate. The Republicans don't have a large majority in the Senate and if they want to do well in the midterms they can't afford to push any extreme candidates. I think we're most likely to get a nominee like Roberts, who's been more of a mixed bag than a consistent "conservative."
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
I would like to believe that such would be the case, but I think your faith in the political institutions, given the events and characters of the last couple of years, is far stronger than mine, particularly the faith that anyone will act in an appropriately timely manner if issues do arise.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 19:15:22
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama.
Right, but under Obama that ratio was mostly in opposition and was there beforehand. Not that the court has some sort of duty to be in opposition to the executive branch, but ultimately the point was that if Trump's actions aren't considered sufficient, he's got leverage on all the other branches of government to make doing something about it rather difficult.
Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
Aye, but most don't have a gigantic private business empire going into it, and just handing that off to the kids or other close immediate family members isn't really "divesting" as most people would see it.
I don't think you'll see an ardently politically biased justice get confirmed by the senate. The Republicans don't have a large majority in the Senate and if they want to do well in the midterms they can't afford to push any extreme candidates. I think we're most likely to get a nominee like Roberts, who's been more of a mixed bag than a consistent "conservative."
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
I would like to believe that such would be the case, but I think your faith in the political institutions, given the events and characters of the last couple of years, is far stronger than mine, particularly the faith that anyone will act in an appropriately timely manner if issues do arise.
I don't have much faith in our political institutions behaving in an ethical, professional and timely manner at all, I just have more faith in the ability of the Feds to enforce existing procedures that they've been enforcing for every POTUS than I do I their ability to create new and better restrictions for Trump in the next 2 weeks.
That's because the footage that Manning saw wasn't nearly as egregious as it was made out to be. Insurgents engaged US troops in a gunfight in an area full of civilians and consequently some civilians died I the fighting, it's inevitable and even desirable for the insurgency side that there are civilian casualties in urban guerilla warfare.
In fact, the footage showed the two journalist helping insurgents. For example, one clearly peeks around the corner and takes pictures, then shows the pictures to the insurgents. And the captured camera verified the pictures were of a hardtop hummer and US troops.
RPGs, AKs and other weapons were with the bodies.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 20:01:53
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 20:33:28
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
The data in the linked article, and series of articles of which it is part, is from presidential elections. The lack of Democratic support and resource allocation to rural districts in presidential elections can't be attributed to gerrymandering because there are no districts in presidential elections, everyone registered voter in the state gets to vote. The premise that Democratic candidates have been losing support in rural areas over the past 8 presidential elections because of gerrymandering is nonsensical.
There was a very good article earlier this year from Politico talking about how partisanship in politics should be blamed on the Democratic and Republican parties "bailing out" of districts they "couldn't win." The author argued that by doing this, large numbers of Americans have been left with only one party to represent them, and that this has contributed to the echo chamber effect of party politics at the local and state level. By turning the entry level of politics into an echo chamber, we've bred a political landscape where a large number of our electoral options only know how to operate in an echo chamber. A Republican from Mississippi, or a Democrat from New York do not know how to cooperate because their entire political career has been spent debating the other as nothing more than a cardboard cut out.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
The data in the linked article, and series of articles of which it is part, is from presidential elections. The lack of Democratic support and resource allocation to rural districts in presidential elections can't be attributed to gerrymandering because there are no districts in presidential elections, everyone registered voter in the state gets to vote. The premise that Democratic candidates have been losing support in rural areas over the past 8 presidential elections because of gerrymandering is nonsensical.
Completely incorrect. Gerrymandering at the local level creates safe districts. Those districts have political resources moved from them. Single party messaging then dominates and eventually effects national voting patterns.
Thebstudy's info is correct but their analysis is wrong. Easy to do when you are trying to prove a thesis and ignore the way simpler answers. But then again...if there was a new theory what would be the point of another study!
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
The political parties abandoning districts has been an issue longer than the extreme gerrymandering of the past two decades. The parties started bailing with the advent of modern political science and electoral analysis in the 50s and 60s, and the current plague of very bad Gerrymandering didn't really kick in until the 80s. It seems more likely to me the former contributed to the later than vice versa. A safe district has to already exist for you to gerrymander it to make ti safer. I'd argue that by abandoning districts both parties allowed the other to have safe districts, and opened the door for them to be gerrymandered for political advantage. Doesn't make gerrymandering right, but that could be the case as easily as what you posit. I don't think we have the data to know which is true.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 21:58:22
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
The data in the linked article, and series of articles of which it is part, is from presidential elections. The lack of Democratic support and resource allocation to rural districts in presidential elections can't be attributed to gerrymandering because there are no districts in presidential elections, everyone registered voter in the state gets to vote. The premise that Democratic candidates have been losing support in rural areas over the past 8 presidential elections because of gerrymandering is nonsensical.
Completely incorrect. Gerrymandering at the local level creates safe districts. Those districts have political resources moved from them. Single party messaging then dominates and eventually effects national voting patterns.
Thebstudy's info is correct but their analysis is wrong. Easy to do when you are trying to prove a thesis and ignore the way simpler answers. But then again...if there was a new theory what would be the point of another study!
For rural areas across the US to become single party districts for Republicans you would need state legislators across the country to uniformly agree to gerrymander rural areas to favor Republicans. Do you have any evidence to support your claim of such collusion? Have all the rural districts been redrawn since 1988 in a way that gerrymanders them into noncompetitive districts? Districts don't change for every election, state legislators are controlled by difference parties at different times, governors belong to different parties at different times yet we still see a steady increase in the rural/urban political divide. You can't chalk all of that up to gerrymandering being done in every state in the same manner to get the same results just by happenstance. Local parties don't have much money, its the RNC and DNC that controls the big purse strings and the state chairs to a lesser degree. The RNC and DNC set national policy for resource allocation and strategy and it trickles down to states and then from states to local districts. It's not like the local Democrats in rural Wisconsin can just decide to stop being a competitive party, they stop being competitive when the DNC decides to commit to a national strategy that starves the local district of money. The voters in those rural districts that used to support Democrats didn't just disappear and there is still rural support for Democrats just less of it. You can't say that gerrymandering swung Obama states to Trump because rural districts are noncompetitive unless all those states had the rural districts redrawn in a gerrymandered way between 2008 and 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: There was a very good article earlier this year from Politico talking about how partisanship in politics should be blamed on the Democratic and Republican parties "bailing out" of districts they "couldn't win." The author argued that by doing this, large numbers of Americans have been left with only one party to represent them, and that this has contributed to the echo chamber effect of party politics at the local and state level. By turning the entry level of politics into an echo chamber, we've bred a political landscape where a large number of our electoral options only know how to operate in an echo chamber. A Republican from Mississippi, or a Democrat from New York do not know how to cooperate because their entire political career has been spent debating the other as nothing more than a cardboard cut out.
It also really hurts the ability to actually solve problems. There are plenty of issues that actually need attention but safe districts take away the impetus to do anything about them. Republicans aren't going to gain much from trying to fix problems in Democrat areas and Democrats aren't going to lose support in those same areas if they maintain the status quo. There's no threat of losing support to the other party so there's no competition to spur politicians into putting forth ideas and trying to find policies with enough common support to be enacted and make things better. Instead we get the same old blame game of Republicans don't care about the plight of the urban poor and urban blight is the fault of the Democrats because they've been in charge of the city for decades, nothing changes and generations of people grow up in the same poverty stricken ghettos with high crime, bad schools and dependent on govt assistance. The plight of the rural poor gets ignored too. People struggling in Appalachia and the Ozarks are poor, dependent on govt assistance, don't have great public schools or job opportunities etc. and those problems have also been around for generations/decades. They don't get fixed because the only thing the Parties really need are votes/support and if they already have that locked up then its in their own self interest to keep the status quo and not fix anything. If people get angry about the status quo then a populist candidate can come along with some good rhetoric win over the electorate and then be co opted by one of the Parties so that nothing really changes after all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/18 22:22:26
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
The data in the linked article, and series of articles of which it is part, is from presidential elections. The lack of Democratic support and resource allocation to rural districts in presidential elections can't be attributed to gerrymandering because there are no districts in presidential elections, everyone registered voter in the state gets to vote. The premise that Democratic candidates have been losing support in rural areas over the past 8 presidential elections because of gerrymandering is nonsensical.
Completely incorrect. Gerrymandering at the local level creates safe districts. Those districts have political resources moved from them. Single party messaging then dominates and eventually effects national voting patterns.
Thebstudy's info is correct but their analysis is wrong. Easy to do when you are trying to prove a thesis and ignore the way simpler answers. But then again...if there was a new theory what would be the point of another study!
For rural areas across the US to become single party districts for Republicans you would need state legislators across the country to uniformly agree to gerrymander rural areas to favor Republicans. Do you have any evidence to support your claim of such collusion? Have all the rural districts been redrawn since 1988 in a way that gerrymanders them into noncompetitive districts? Districts don't change for every election, state legislators are controlled by difference parties at different times, governors belong to different parties at different times yet we still see a steady increase in the rural/urban political divide. You can't chalk all of that up to gerrymandering being done in every state in the same manner to get the same results just by happenstance. Local parties don't have much money, its the RNC and DNC that controls the big purse strings and the state chairs to a lesser degree. The RNC and DNC set national policy for resource allocation and strategy and it trickles down to states and then from states to local districts. It's not like the local Democrats in rural Wisconsin can just decide to stop being a competitive party, they stop being competitive when the DNC decides to commit to a national strategy that starves the local district of money. The voters in those rural districts that used to support Democrats didn't just disappear and there is still rural support for Democrats just less of it. You can't say that gerrymandering swung Obama states to Trump because rural districts are noncompetitive unless all those states had the rural districts redrawn in a gerrymandered way between 2008 and 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: There was a very good article earlier this year from Politico talking about how partisanship in politics should be blamed on the Democratic and Republican parties "bailing out" of districts they "couldn't win." The author argued that by doing this, large numbers of Americans have been left with only one party to represent them, and that this has contributed to the echo chamber effect of party politics at the local and state level. By turning the entry level of politics into an echo chamber, we've bred a political landscape where a large number of our electoral options only know how to operate in an echo chamber. A Republican from Mississippi, or a Democrat from New York do not know how to cooperate because their entire political career has been spent debating the other as nothing more than a cardboard cut out.
It also really hurts the ability to actually solve problems. There are plenty of issues that actually need attention but safe districts take away the impetus to do anything about them. Republicans aren't going to gain much from trying to fix problems in Democrat areas and Democrats aren't going to lose support in those same areas if they maintain the status quo. There's no threat of losing support to the other party so there's no competition to spur politicians into putting forth ideas and trying to find policies with enough common support to be enacted and make things better. Instead we get the same old blame game of Republicans don't care about the plight of the urban poor and urban blight is the fault of the Democrats because they've been in charge of the city for decades, nothing changes and generations of people grow up in the same poverty stricken ghettos with high crime, bad schools and dependent on govt assistance. The plight of the rural poor gets ignored too. People struggling in Appalachia and the Ozarks are poor, dependent on govt assistance, don't have great public schools or job opportunities etc. and those problems have also been around for generations/decades. They don't get fixed because the only thing the Parties really need are votes/support and if they already have that locked up then its in their own self interest to keep the status quo and not fix anything. If people get angry about the status quo then a populist candidate can come along with some good rhetoric win over the electorate and then be co opted by one of the Parties so that nothing really changes after all.
Nonsense. You dont need to show collusion. Nor is that the point of the article. All you have to see is the effect over time. Also, you dont need to show gerrymandering between the two elections. The point of the study is effects over time. If you are demanding to see changes over a short time then I am not sure why you reference the study at all.
This is, ill admit, sort of a chicken and egg argument. What happened first? Did dems take mine away and the area become non-competitive as a result or did they remove money because the areas become non-competitive?
Since politicians never cease trying to wrangle more money for reelections I am going to say the money didnt leave first. Unless, you think they all decided together to lose the jobs?
"Burning the aquila into the retinas of heretics is the new black." - Savnock
"The ignore button is for pansees who can't deal with their own problems. " - H.B.M.C.
LordofHats wrote: Actually the reason Snowden didn't give information to WikiLeaks is because WikiLeaks is incredibly reckless with information.
This is one of the things that makes Snowden's claim of whistleblowing stronger than Manning's will ever be. Snowden disclosed the files he stole to supposedly responsible news organizations instead of just airing the USAs dirty laundry for all to see. Still, Snowden doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, legally speaking, and his flight to Russia certainly won't help him get a sympathetic jury if/when he's back on American soil.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The counter argument is that he should have consulted the proper channels, but when the Obama administration is actively pursuing whistleblowers on a scale never before seen, who can blame Snowden for getting out? Not I.
If I remember correctly he tried multiple time to go through the correct channels but it never led to anything being done so he chose the illegal route.
Breotan wrote:
Still, Snowden doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, legally speaking, and his flight to Russia certainly won't help him get a sympathetic jury if/when he's back on American soil.
Again, if I remember correctly, he initially wanted to go somewhere else (I think some South American country?) but those routes became too dangerous and the Russia route allowed for safe passage (but he's stuck there). When he arrived there it wasn't even clear if he would stay there.
Something's been stuck in my mind the last day or so, something very important somebody said, and you all seem to have passed over it like it was nothing:
LordofHats wrote: Actually the reason Snowden didn't give information to WikiLeaks is because WikiLeaks is incredibly reckless with information.
This is one of the things that makes Snowden's claim of whistleblowing stronger than Manning's will ever be. Snowden disclosed the files he stole to supposedly responsible news organizations instead of just airing the USAs dirty laundry for all to see. Still, Snowden doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, legally speaking, and his flight to Russia certainly won't help him get a sympathetic jury if/when he's back on American soil.
Eh, after the Branch Dildonians got off (heh, "got off", get it?) even with all that wonderful visual evidence of them having guns in a federal building, who the hell knows anymore?
LordofHats wrote: The political parties abandoning districts has been an issue longer than the extreme gerrymandering of the past two decades. The parties started bailing with the advent of modern political science and electoral analysis in the 50s and 60s, and the current plague of very bad Gerrymandering didn't really kick in until the 80s. It seems more likely to me the former contributed to the later than vice versa. A safe district has to already exist for you to gerrymander it to make ti safer. I'd argue that by abandoning districts both parties allowed the other to have safe districts, and opened the door for them to be gerrymandered for political advantage. Doesn't make gerrymandering right, but that could be the case as easily as what you posit. I don't think we have the data to know which is true.
There is definitely some correlation between the two, I would think. There's also the simple fact that if you're Party X living in a district gerrymandered to hell to keep Party Y in power, so that year after year your vote means diddly, you could even get discouraged to vote in a presidential election. One could even argue that the presidential election is gerrymandered to an extent, due to the winner-takes-all approach most states use for the EC,
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
There's also issues with people self-selecting their districts, people are seeking to live and move to places that conform to their political ideologies in numbers not necessarily seen before, and occupations are becoming increasingly politicized as well. This reinforces the echo chamber, the "safeness" of districts and states, and drains opposition. Political polarization is being taken to levels not seen in many decades. People and industries that may be labelled "liberal" aren't exactly flocking to places like Oklahoma or Alabama, while people and industries that would probably fall under the label of "conservative" are actively moving out of places like California and aren't exactly looking to move to states like Massachusetts. Tech companies aren't seeking to expand or startup in places like Kansas or Mississippi, while stuff like firearms manufacturers are increasingly moving out of places like Connecticut and New York (which once the firearms production capitals of the US) for states like Tennessee.
Not sure where or how that fits into things, whether it's a chicken or an egg, but it's absolutely a real thing.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
