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.
Pouncey wrote: Why might Republican voters not turn out a lot too? Their party is doing literally everything it wants, with no opposition, and you just watched Trump get elected 2 years ago.
Because they're about to watch Trump fail to deliver his promises. Clinton is not going to jail, Obamacare is not going to be abolished (and if it is, the results are going to be even worse), there is not going to be a border wall, and the manufacturing jobs are not coming back. Meanwhile Trump is going to be doing his best to demonstrate that "drain the swamp" really meant "make room for my swamp". And things are going to get even worse if the republican party can't find a way to actually govern instead of stirring up the angry mob with "IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT DOWN WITH OBAMA" over and over again. The enthusiasm of 2016 is not going to last, and the only question is whether the effects happen in 2018 or 2020.
Also, how likely is it that the creators of your governments laws didn't ever ask themselves, "Hey, what happens if one party controls a majority of the votes in the government, so they just pass laws that make it so they never lose power again, even though everyone's still allowed to vote for both parties?" and didn't answer it with, "Oh crap, that might be bad, let's make some laws against that, and put them in the constitution so no one can ever change them unless there's a really, REALLY good reason to determine the constitution unconstitutional."
Very likely. The creators of our government didn't believe in the idea of political parties and expected everyone to be elected as individuals. There was no concept of "both parties".
And eventually, you could probably legitimately revolt against the USA becoming an oligarchy, and the military would be obligated to support the revolt, since they're pledged to obey the constitution, not the government, for EXACTLY this reason.
This is wishful thinking at best. Aside from the questions of whether the military would support violent revolution against a legally-elected government passing laws that some people don't like, if the US managed to get into a one-party system it would almost certainly be because the one party had massive support from the population (and, by extension, the military). And in that case the military would follow orders and put down the coup attempt by an unpopular minority.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: Is it, like, even a problem that the Republicans decided to not let Obama's nomination for a Supreme Court Justice through?
Yes, because it means that the system is broken. The intent of the system is that the president picks the supreme court justice, and the senate is the last-resort option to prevent things like the president nominating an unqualified major campaign donor as a reward for their bribes. The intent is NOT that one party can declare "no supreme court justices can be appointed until we get to pick them" and shut down the entire process. The argument against Obama's pick was not based on any legitimate objection to the person he picked. In fact, the republican party stated that no nominee would be accepted, before Obama ever announced any choice. The only reason for blocking the nomination was a belief that if the republican party could shut down the process long enough they could win a presidential election and get to make the pick.
The reason that this is broken is that, aside from partisan politics, it's a situation that can only work when one party does it. If the democrats return the favor and declare that every one of Trump's picks will be rejected, no matter who they are, then the supreme court can't get its ninth justice until 2020 at least. And if one of the remaining eight dies before 2020 then the court is down to seven justices. Then six, then five, and so on until the president has a fillibuster-proof majority in the senate and picks all of the new justices at once. So either the democrats give in to the guy with a suicide bomb and a list of demands, or they let the system break.
And if you're gonna have a two party system, maybe just stop assuming that the side you prefer less is always wrong about everything, and consider that they still represent around half of your government, thus it's damned well worth considering that maybe have valid points sometimes.
This would be a valid point in most situations, but in this case we're dealing with a party that has departed entirely from reality. The republican party might accidentally have a valid point occasionally, but they're few and far between.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/29 09:11:19
Peregrine wrote: Yes, because it means that the system is broken. The intent of the system is that the president picks the supreme court justice, and the senate is the last-resort option to prevent things like the president nominating an unqualified major campaign donor as a reward for their bribes. The intent is NOT that one party can declare "no supreme court justices can be appointed until we get to pick them" and shut down the entire process. The argument against Obama's pick was not based on any legitimate objection to the person he picked. In fact, the republican party stated that no nominee would be accepted, before Obama ever announced any choice. The only reason for blocking the nomination was a belief that if the republican party could shut down the process long enough they could win a presidential election and get to make the pick.
The reason that this is broken is that, aside from partisan politics, it's a situation that can only work when one party does it. If the democrats return the favor and declare that every one of Trump's picks will be rejected, no matter who they are, then the supreme court can't get its ninth justice until 2020 at least. And if one of the remaining eight dies before 2020 then the court is down to seven justices. Then six, then five, and so on until the president has a fillibuster-proof majority in the senate and picks all of the new justices at once. So either the democrats give in to the guy with a suicide bomb and a list of demands, or they let the system break.
I think you have a much more serious problem, actually.
Because what you just told me is that your government is now ignoring its own rules and nothing is actually stopping them from doing so.
What happens when they find out that laws are only things that exist in the minds of humans, that simply affect our behavior by our knowledge of them?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, I see.
You're concerned about the possibility of fewer judges.
No, Trump's gonna get to choose who he wants, and if the Republicans approve, they're not gonna wait until 2018's election to put Trump's pick into the Supreme Court.
I mean, do you even know WHY the Republicans stalled on this in the first place?
Pouncey wrote: What happens when they find out that laws are only things that exist in the minds of humans, that simply affect our behavior by our knowledge of them?
That's a very different question. Remember, imposing a policy of "we will reject any nomination Obama attempts, no matter who it is" was not illegal. It was an example of dysfunctional government and broke the unwritten rules for how to get things done, but it didn't actually break any laws. There's a huge step from that to "laws are all imaginary, we can break them all we like", and a lot more opportunities for the courts to step in and say "no".
No, Trump's gonna get to choose who he wants, and if the Republicans approve, they're not gonna wait until 2018's election to put Trump's pick into the Supreme Court.
Unless the democrats declare "no justices will be appointed until a democrat is president" and filibuster every attempt. Remember, the republicans have a majority in the senate but they do not have a filibuster-proof majority. The democrats, if they choose to do so, can prevent any confirmation vote from happening until at least the 2018 senate election and almost certainly until 2020. The only question here is whether the democrats say "fine, you've shut down the government because you didn't get to control it, now we'll do it too" or protect the functioning of government by allowing the nomination process to proceed under the previous unwritten rules.
I mean, do you even know WHY the Republicans stalled on this in the first place?
Of course, because they thought they could get control of the process if they could stall until 2017, and at least use the threat of "CLINTON WILL DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT IF YOU LET HER APPOINT A JUSTICE" to drive turnout in 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pouncey wrote: Well, I cannot possibly conceive a situation where a majority is so large it is simply immune to a filibuster.
Pouncey wrote: Generally, I think your country would be incredibly vulnerable by filibustering indefinitely. At the least, they'd have to take a break if anyone decided to take advantage of the fact the US government has been technically unable to do things like spend money for years on end and started acting accordingly.
Yes, of course it would be a problem. In a less-dysfunctional government the response would be to at least temporarily abandon the bill that is being filibustered and move on to other business. In a more-dysfunctional government that's exactly what would happen, the entire system would break. It's just like how the republican party's murder-suicide threat over the debt ceiling started to shut down the government until they finally found a bit of sanity. So the only question is whether you're willing to accept the collateral damage of your bargaining tool or not.
When exactly do you believe the next congressional and senatorial election is happening? What year, specifically?
2018, with the people elected taking office in 2019.
(Technically special elections for individual seats could happen before then, but 2018 is the next normal election.)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/29 11:27:40
Dreadwinter wrote: He is from Germany(right?) and it was a rhetorical question.
You mean Trump?
He's American. Obviously.
No, seriously, who are you talking about here?
Edit: Oh, I see who you mean.
I, uh, simply assumed the country flag meant more than it actually does. My bad.
Don't worry about it.
D-USA is German when the German soccer team is winning, but American when they get beat
which to be fair, given how good they are, is not that often!
I think he's dual nationality.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, back OT.
An interesting and balanced IMO article on what the USA could look like in 2017 with regards to the environment, SCOTUS, abortion rights, Obama Care etc etc
Was interesting to note that some of the SCOTUS judges are approaching 80 years old. Now, obviously, there is nothing wrong with being old, but death and or retirement (they are allowed to retire, right?) could swing the balance of SCOTUS to Trump and the GOP, with the warning that Roe Vs. Wade could be under threat...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/29 12:51:30
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Peregrine wrote: Because they're about to watch Trump fail to deliver his promises.
I don't see the Republicans being vulnerable to logic here. Forgive me for being crass but I have some reasoning, Trump supporters (IE: people who inexplicably like the man) do not care a wit for promises, parties or anything more than the fact their guy won, Republicans are unlikely to see a NYC democrat turncoat as a representative of their party. And I cannot blame the Republicans on that one, still lost as to why he got as much support as he did.
I've said elsewhere that Democrats need to stop leaning on 'sure thing' candidates, every last damn one of them lost. I they'd gone with someone with any where near as much public support as Obama has right now they'd have won, instead they went with Clinton. It didn't work for Gore it probably won't work for whoever the next supposed shoe in is supposed to be. It's plainly obvious that right now people are voting for a DIFFERENT government and which ever side actually goes wide or at least makes it look like they're going to is getting people to turn out while the other is not. Trump is... different, and as such actually got people to turn out. Clinton is bog standard politics in a pants suit, while I'd personally take it over Trump in a heart beat, it did not drive voters in the areas that it needed to.
Clinton was the Democrats' best available candidate. Bernie Sanders was not popular enough with the party to get nominated, and he is too old now for next time.
The Democrats' great weakness is a lack of depth. They don't have a lot of clear up-and-comers. Also they don't have a big enough rock solid base to overturn the built-in Republican advantage that derives from the way the Senate and Electoral college over-value rural states. They need a candidate who can enthuse the sometimes voters.
Peregrine wrote: Because they're about to watch Trump fail to deliver his promises.
I don't see the Republicans being vulnerable to logic here. Forgive me for being crass but I have some reasoning, Trump supporters (IE: people who inexplicably like the man) do not care a wit for promises, parties or anything more than the fact their guy won, Republicans are unlikely to see a NYC democrat turncoat as a representative of their party. And I cannot blame the Republicans on that one, still lost as to why he got as much support as he did.
I've said elsewhere that Democrats need to stop leaning on 'sure thing' candidates, every last damn one of them lost. I they'd gone with someone with any where near as much public support as Obama has right now they'd have won, instead they went with Clinton. It didn't work for Gore it probably won't work for whoever the next supposed shoe in is supposed to be. It's plainly obvious that right now people are voting for a DIFFERENT government and which ever side actually goes wide or at least makes it look like they're going to is getting people to turn out while the other is not. Trump is... different, and as such actually got people to turn out. Clinton is bog standard politics in a pants suit, while I'd personally take it over Trump in a heart beat, it did not drive voters in the areas that it needed to.
It's a good point, but people forget that not only did the Democrats lose the election, but the GOP also lost the election.
Trump swatted aside the GOP candidates with ease. Trump is a third party candidate who successfully hijacked a party for his own ends!
Never was this reality more stark than the reception Trump received at the GOP convention. The man stood there like a stranger.
I find it ironic that the GOP claim Trump's victory as a victory for the GOP when Trump is an independent masquerading as the GOP poster boy.
The election result was a GOP victory in name only.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Clinton was the Democrats' best available candidate. Bernie Sanders was not popular enough with the party to get nominated, and he is too old now for next time.
The Democrats' great weakness is a lack of depth. They don't have a lot of clear up-and-comers. Also they don't have a big enough rock solid base to overturn the built-in Republican advantage that derives from the way the Senate and Electoral college over-value rural states. They need a candidate who can enthuse the sometimes voters.
A week is a long time in politics, as one of our former Prime Ministers famously said.
It could be that that in the next 4 years, Trump makes such a mess of the job, that the Democrats could nominate a traffic cone and still win the next presidential election, because by that stage, the American public would back anything or anyone rather than Trump.
It's foolish to predict the future, especially with a world in constant flux.
Death and taxes are your only certainties
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/29 13:10:04
Meanwhile Trump is going to be doing his best to demonstrate that "drain the swamp" really meant "make room for my swamp".
His Swamp just happens to be filled will Ex CEO's. Really the Exxon CEO for secretary of state? A Climate change denier as EPA? The CEO of Carl's Junior who laughs at mandatory breaks for employees for Labor?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/29 13:40:30
Meanwhile Trump is going to be doing his best to demonstrate that "drain the swamp" really meant "make room for my swamp".
His Swamp just happens to be filled will Ex CEO's. Really the Exxon CEO for secretary of state? A Climate change denier as EPA? The CEO of Carl's Junior who laughs at mandatory breaks for employees for Labor?
Not to get too offtopic but have you ever heard of 'Simulation Theory'?
Now as much as I would love too I can't post links from my phone, but suffice it to say there is a fringe belief among some scientists and mathmaticians that our universe is a simulation of some kind.
Now just one of the major downsides of this is that scientests rarely use said simulations to test anything positive...
Meanwhile Trump is going to be doing his best to demonstrate that "drain the swamp" really meant "make room for my swamp".
His Swamp just happens to be filled will Ex CEO's. Really the Exxon CEO for secretary of state? A Climate change denier as EPA? The CEO of Carl's Junior who laughs at mandatory breaks for employees for Labor?
Not to get too offtopic but have you ever heard of 'Simulation Theory'?
Now as much as I would love too I can't post links from my phone, but suffice it to say there is a fringe belief among some scientists and mathmaticians that our universe is a simulation of some kind.
Now just one of the major downsides of this is that scientests rarely use said simulations to test anything positive...
Yep, and people also believe Obama is prince of the lizard people.
Meanwhile Trump is going to be doing his best to demonstrate that "drain the swamp" really meant "make room for my swamp".
His Swamp just happens to be filled will Ex CEO's. Really the Exxon CEO for secretary of state? A Climate change denier as EPA? The CEO of Carl's Junior who laughs at mandatory breaks for employees for Labor?
I honestly felt bad for all my friends and family who believed that Trump would save us from the "criminal Hillary empire". Yeah, Hillary's a crook, but so is Trump and pretty much any other politician.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/29 14:37:16
I honestly felt bad for all my friends and family who believed that Trump would save us from the "criminal Hillary empire". Yeah, Hillary's a crook, but so is Trump and pretty much any other politician.
They are true believers. Which is a huge problem, for most people not white, straight or christian. They have people in office and backers who want to dictate law from the bible and allow discrimination if you don't fall within those beliefs. They also want to fill the SCotUS with these people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/29 16:16:41
Which is a huge problem, for most people not white, straight or christian.
That could probably be corrected to, "white, straight and christian." Well, actually, lets go for 'pretends to be Christian'. Also adding in "male" could be an option.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/29 16:53:41
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Trump swatted aside the GOP candidates with ease. Trump is a third party candidate who successfully hijacked a party for his own ends!
The "old guard" at the GOP still haven't figured out how he pulled it off. Then again, neither have the Democrats.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I find it ironic that the GOP claim Trump's victory as a victory for the GOP when Trump is an independent masquerading as the GOP poster boy.
The election result was a GOP victory in name only.
This may be true in Trump's personal election but the GOP won big in other areas such as State seats and local races. The GOP was also expected to lose the Senate and they kept it instead. It's also a victory for the GOP in that Trump is expected to sign off on much of their legislative agenda. What he actually does remains to be seen.
Which is a huge problem, for most people not white, straight or christian.
That could probably be corrected to, "white, straight and christian." Well, actually, lets go for 'pretends to be Christian'. Also adding in "male" could be an option.
I'm not American, not running for political office in America (or the UK or EU or Scotland or anywhere for that matter). All my opinions are are my own personal opinions and I don't need to learn any Lessons about pretending horrible people aren't horrible people in order to get their votes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/29 17:27:26
Compel wrote: I'm not American, not running for political office in America (or the UK or EU of Scotland or anywhere for that matter). I don't need to learn any Lessons about pretending horrible people aren't horrible people in order to get their votes.
The lesson I'm referring to is play nose-deep in identity politics.
That's what happened this year, when much of the whites/men/christians voted as if they're an ethnic bloc.
Compel wrote: I'm not American, not running for political office in America (or the UK or EU of Scotland or anywhere for that matter). I don't need to learn any Lessons about pretending horrible people aren't horrible people in order to get their votes.
The lesson I'm referring to is play nose-deep in identity politics.
That's what happened this year, when much of the whites/men/christians voted as if they're an ethnic bloc.
Shows you who a lot of these christians really are deep down. You wave the jesus flag in front of their faces and you got their vote. Wasn't really sure who god was voting for this election since several of them said he was the one who told them to run.
Compel wrote: I'm not American, not running for political office in America (or the UK or EU of Scotland or anywhere for that matter). I don't need to learn any Lessons about pretending horrible people aren't horrible people in order to get their votes.
The lesson I'm referring to is play nose-deep in identity politics.
That's what happened this year, when much of the whites/men/christians voted as if they're an ethnic bloc.
Shows you who a lot of these christians really are deep down. You wave the jesus flag in front of their faces and you got their vote. Wasn't really sure who god was voting for this election since several of them said he was the one who told them to run.
Right... because Trump is like the pope is the reason why they voted...
Nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Democrat's policies...
Compel wrote: I'm not American, not running for political office in America (or the UK or EU of Scotland or anywhere for that matter). I don't need to learn any Lessons about pretending horrible people aren't horrible people in order to get their votes.
The lesson I'm referring to is play nose-deep in identity politics.
That's what happened this year, when much of the whites/men/christians voted as if they're an ethnic bloc.
Shows you who a lot of these christians really are deep down. You wave the jesus flag in front of their faces and you got their vote. Wasn't really sure who god was voting for this election since several of them said he was the one who told them to run.
Right... because Trump is like the pope is the reason why they voted...
Nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Democrat's policies...
I must have imagined people like Pat Robertson & Franklin Graham preaching to the flock about gods choice in president.
Compel wrote: I'm not American, not running for political office in America (or the UK or EU of Scotland or anywhere for that matter). I don't need to learn any Lessons about pretending horrible people aren't horrible people in order to get their votes.
The lesson I'm referring to is play nose-deep in identity politics.
That's what happened this year, when much of the whites/men/christians voted as if they're an ethnic bloc.
Shows you who a lot of these christians really are deep down. You wave the jesus flag in front of their faces and you got their vote. Wasn't really sure who god was voting for this election since several of them said he was the one who told them to run.
Right... because Trump is like the pope is the reason why they voted...
Nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Democrat's policies...
I must have imagined people like Pat Robertson & Franklin Graham preaching to the flock about gods choice in president.
I think it's more, people are a-holes and like using faith and religion to justify and rationalise being a-holes, no matter what that religion is or is really actually about.
And Ustrallo, you were about 4 posts too slow
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/29 18:11:04
My views on religion aside. Separation of church and state must be upheld. These are the people who want to see laws past prohibiting equality for other who don't fall in with their beliefs. These are the people who want laws that protect discrimination. Then you have pastors preaching to their flock of who "god" wants them to vote for.
Vash108 wrote: My views on religion aside. Separation of church and state must be upheld. These are the people who want to see laws past prohibiting equality for other who don't fall in with their beliefs. These are the people who want laws that protect discrimination. Then you have pastors preaching to their flock of who "god" wants them to vote for.
Hey... I think churches should NOT have tax exemptions in their operation expressly BECAUSE we know they use the bully pulpit in advocating certain things.
So, what's your fears that the politicans "these people" voted for?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: I think it's more, people are a-holes and like using faith and religion to justify and rationalise being a-holes, no matter what that religion is or is really actually about.
Fair enough.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/29 18:15:55
Vash108 wrote: My views on religion aside. Separation of church and state must be upheld. These are the people who want to see laws past prohibiting equality for other who don't fall in with their beliefs. These are the people who want laws that protect discrimination. Then you have pastors preaching to their flock of who "god" wants them to vote for.
Hey... I think churches should NOT have tax exemptions in their operation expressly BECAUSE we know they use the bully pulpit in advocating certain things.
So, what's your fears that the politicans "these people" voted for?
The bullying from the pulpit is putting these people in places of power and the ability to put forth laws. We have seen things like it in North Carolina. Look at the south. I can't buy a beer on Sunday in someplace because its "gods" day. It will continue to creep in.
You have had preachers saying things like this new war on terror is a great opportunity to spread the gospel in the lands of Abraham. It is these kind of people that scare me.
It's stuff like this guy, who will be praying at the Trump inauguration
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/12/29 18:58:27
Compel wrote: I'm not American, not running for political office in America (or the UK or EU of Scotland or anywhere for that matter). I don't need to learn any Lessons about pretending horrible people aren't horrible people in order to get their votes.
The lesson I'm referring to is play nose-deep in identity politics.
That's what happened this year, when much of the whites/men/christians voted as if they're an ethnic bloc.
Shows you who a lot of these christians really are deep down. You wave the jesus flag in front of their faces and you got their vote. Wasn't really sure who god was voting for this election since several of them said he was the one who told them to run.
Right... because Trump is like the pope is the reason why they voted...
Nothing to do with Hillary Clinton or Democrat's policies...
I must have imagined people like Pat Robertson & Franklin Graham preaching to the flock about gods choice in president.
Whoops that white supremacy one just slipped in there.
So what's your point?
People of faith are bad and shouldn't be voting???
The point is likely that you can't claim that you are voting in a "Christian" way, or for the "Christian" candidate, or for the party which has "Christian" values only to ignore those values when you voted.
The biggest fraud in our current politics is that the GOP somehow managed to become the Christian Party. And the biggest damage to much of the Christian Church in the US right now is that much of it has become involved in politics at all, and that many members and clergy have become more passionate about advancing the cause of a party or a candidate instead of advancing the Gospel.
My church actually had a very good sermon series leading up to the election. I was worried about it when they announced that they would do a "political sermon", but it really hit the spot for me when I heard it because it managed to address the problems I have when churches get involved in politics. I linked it for those who may be interested, the Aug 21st sermon really hits the high point for me.
