America - The Official Thread

[PocketZeven]

If he's believed to have engaged in activities not befitting an individual of his station and there's no reason to believe he won't continue to do so, why should he be permitted to retain said station? If you believe he's engaged in this manner and don't support his removal, doesn't that make you, at least in part, party to that behavior?

I regularly see people who want to see him gone suggest that it's better to put energy into replacing him instead of removing him--Nancy Pelosi being chief among them--but the two aren't mutually exclusive; the two causes aren't dependant upon the same resources.

The problem is probably there is no clear definition what is "befitting". Everyone knows he lies and is a corrupt person even before he started his campaign. Impeaching him wont change that at all. Especially when he is still on that pedestal called the presidency. Seemingly above the law.

The best and fastest way to get rid of him is not impeachment, but voting him out of office. You also reduce the risk of political backfire. Replacing or removing him have largely the same purpose. The risk of impeachment backfiring is one that should not be overlooked.

Also in my opinion Trump should not get the possibility to be pardoned by Pence or anyone else.

 

[huskeR32]

Gonna need to define those who "feel" disadvantaged vs. those who are actually able to be classified as disadvantaged...

Isn't this a fun little knot you've tied.

The second part of your premise, that there are people who are "actually able to be classified as disadvantaged" makes my statement then self-evidently referring to such people, and your challenge here is nonsensical.

However, I suspect your true worldview is that only the first part of the premise exists, namely that the world truly is one big level playing field. Otherwise, why would you have created this strawman at all?

At any rate, why would Trump care about that spectrum of voters anyways? They're not the swing voters that helped him become elected, and it's a waste of time to do such.

I wasn't referring to Trump.

 

[UKMikey]

"We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Give me five bees for a quarter, you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."

 

[Swagger897]

Isn't this a fun little knot you've tied.

The second part of your premise, that there are people who are "actually able to be classified as disadvantaged" makes my statement then self-evidently referring to such people, and your challenge here is nonsensical.

Jesus, you have read far too deep into something made to be so simply understood. For someone who started off by putting themselves into the corner you're doing a fine job of crying wolf in order to make a point that need not be made.

I wasn't referring to Trump.

Well that's great and all, but considering that the topic was about Trump to begin with I don't understand why then you seem to be throwing yourself into a conversation you don't understand yourself?

I prefer facts over theories though. My opinion of Trump is also based on facts.

Most people, even those who politically support him, have a low opinion of Trump. He disturbs the feelings of many sensitive people in Seattle, I know that for a fact.

 

[Biggles]

Here's the problem with American politics as I see it. You have an ostensibly logical system that is founded on some deeply flawed underpinnings. Most obviously, the division of the country into States which reflect a variety of historical accidents & anomalies. This is further complicated by the anachronistic Electoral College - which is again a historical compromise that didn't make much sense to start with & makes even less sense now.

The majority of Americans in recent elections have voted Democrat in general elections, although not always by large margins. The electoral college can negate the majority vote replacing it with a result based on the vagaries of the electoral college.

Within the individual States the party controlling the legislature &/or the governor's mansion can can manipulate the state-wide voting through gerrymandering to create a situation where one of the parties wins way more seats in the state legislature than is justified by the voting results. Once ensconced in power they can continue to manipulate the system to ensure they remain in power & influence the results of the US House elections.

The make-up of the US Senate grants completely disproportionate power to small & rural states. Additionally, control of the Senate grants the party controlling the Senate the ability to block judicial appointees & therefore influence the make-up of the courts (see the case of Merrick Garland). So the small & rural states have a disproportionate control of the judicial system as well as the Senate.

When there is a less polarized electorate & less polarized Congress it's possible this system can function with a degree of equity, but the way things are now, with a would-be autocrat in the White House, & Republicans in the House & Senate enabling him, the system seems completely broken.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Here's the problem with American politics as I see it. You have an ostensibly logical system that is founded on some deeply flawed underpinnings. Most obviously, the division of the country into States which reflect a variety of historical accidents & anomalies. This is further complicated by the anachronistic Electoral College - which is again a historical compromise that didn't make much sense to start with & makes even less sense now.

The majority of Americans in recent elections have voted Democrat in general elections, although not always by large margins. The electoral college can negate the majority vote replacing it with a result based on the vagaries of the electoral college.

Within the individual States the party controlling the legislature &/or the governor's mansion can can manipulate the state-wide voting through gerrymandering to create a situation where one of the parties wins way more seats in the state legislature than is justified by the voting results. Once ensconced in power they can continue to manipulate the system to ensure they remain in power & influence the results of the US House elections.

The make-up of the US Senate grants completely disproportionate power to small & rural states. Additionally, control of the Senate grants the party controlling the Senate the ability to block judicial appointees & therefore influence the make-up of the courts (see the case of Merrick Garland). So the small & rural states have a disproportionate control of the judicial system as well as the Senate.

When there is a less polarized electorate & less polarized Congress it's possible this system can function with a degree of equity, but the way things are now, with a would-be autocrat in the White House, & Republicans in the House & Senate enabling him, the system seems completely broken.

A big problem is that the framers of the US government did not intend the system to be monopolized by two political parties. It's unlikely we would have such a chasm right now if there were multiple parties to choose from. The democrat-vs-republican fight has been effectively institutionalized. Partisanship is destroying us. Trump exploits it for his own personal gain.

 

[Biggles]

A big problem is that the framers of the US government did not intend the system to be monopolized by two political parties. It's unlikely we would have such a chasm right now if there were multiple parties to choose from. The democrat-vs-republican fight has been effectively institutionalized. Partisanship is destroying us. Trump exploits it for his own personal gain.

That's true ... but realistically, the framers of the Constitution had no idea how the United States would develop & could only do their best under the circumstances & time in which they found themselves. How could they anticipate that continental America would stretch for thousands of miles westwards & that two hundred years later a vast territory called California would dwarf the population & land mass of Virginia & Massachusetts, let alone Delaware & Rhode Island?

 

[Dotini]

James Madison, writing in the Federalist Paper #10, explores the thinking which led to the US Constitution, and to the choice that was made between democracy and republic. When he uses the term faction, it means the same as party.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/f...he-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/

 

[Scaff]

James Madison, writing in the Federalist Paper #10, explores the thinking which led to the US Constitution, and to the choice that was made between democracy and republic. When he uses the term faction, it means the same as party.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/f...he-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/

I would argue that the US is both, being a Democratic Republic

 

[TenEightyOne]

James Madison, writing in the Federalist Paper #10, explores the thinking which led to the US Constitution, and to the choice that was made between democracy and republic.

You explain how "faction" had a slightly different connotation at the time of Madison's writing, it might have been helpful for you to add that he also used "democracy" a little differently to the way we understand it now. In Madison's sense of democracy every person votes on every thing rather than through elected representatives. What Madison calls republican is still what we consider today to be a democratic system.

 

[eran0004]

James Madison, writing in the Federalist Paper #10, explores the thinking which led to the US Constitution, and to the choice that was made between democracy and republic. When he uses the term faction, it means the same as party.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/f...he-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/

Actually he says that faction means a group of people with a common interest. For example people who are in favour of gun control, or people who are against abortion. He argues that a representative democracy (or republic as he calls it) is better than direct democracy because the voice of the people will be interpreted by an enlightened few and they will be able to find ways of satisfying the needs of various factions without harming the rights of minorities. The bigger the republic, the greater the chance of finding “fit” representatives.

An obvious problem with his reasoning is that in a situation where party loyalty weighs heavier than loyalty towards the republic, the safety mechanisms are compromised. Instead of having a congress with a multitude of independent and enlightened individuals to counteract the influence of a few sinister ones, effectively there would be only a few parties, and if some of them are sinister then the rights of minorities are in jeopardy.

However, it would probably still be better than direct democracy, because with such a big country it would be too costly and too time consuming to let everyone have a vote in every matter, and the fundamental problem with an oppressive/selfish majority would still exist.

Edit: In one sense, the party system is almost like a parliament hack. If you have a loyal majority, then you can run a really efficient government and get things done. On the other hand, it makes things really difficult when you don’t have a majority, and it also compromises the failsafe mechanism that the collective of enlightened individuals constitute.

 

[Dotini]

Thank you all for reading the Federalist #10.

Perhaps the key problem for Madison and most of the Founders was in getting all the sates to accept federal rule. That's why he and Hamilton wrote the series of anonymous tracts we call the Federalist papers - to persuade everyone of the wisdom and benefit of federalism.

Back then the two biggest factions were the northern industrialists and the southern agrarians. Small states with cities and high populations and large rural states with low population and essentially different interests. Fearing the tyranny of the majority, the agrarian states were reluctant to be subject to the rule of numerous small states with high population. To get their buy-in, the Founders had to tweak the constitution with goodies such as a bicameral Congress with a Senate and an Electoral College to assuage the fears and doubts of the minority.

This concludes today's edition of "How we got here". Carry on please.

Edit:

You explain how "faction" had a slightly different connotation at the time of Madison's writing, it might have been helpful for you to add that he also used "democracy" a little differently to the way we understand it now. In Madison's sense of democracy every person votes on every thing rather than through elected representatives. What Madison calls republican is still what we consider today to be a democratic system.

This post is an instructive illustration of the critical misunderstanding of democracy and republic in the context of our choice of governance.

Boiled down to the crucial essence of the difference it makes to the Constitution:

In a democracy, the people vote.

In a federal republic, the states vote.

 

[UKMikey]

This post is an instructive illustration of the critical misunderstanding of democracy and republic in the context of our choice of governance.

Boiled down to the crucial essence of the difference it makes to the Constitution:

In a democracy, the people vote.

In a federal republic, the states vote.

I'm not sure the misunderstanding is on our side.

If John Adams can call a republic a democracy then I'm not sure why we can't. The UK uses a similar system but with wards and constituencies instead of counties and states. I don't think there are many democratic countries in the world that usethe word "democracy" solely in the direct sense to which you're referring. To me "democracy" is used in opposition to "dictatorship" in that the people have a say in who rules and "republic" just means "no king or queen".

 

[Dotini]

I'm not sure the misunderstanding is on our side.

If John Adams can call a republic a democracy then I'm not sure why we can't. The UK uses a similar system but with wards and constituencies instead of counties and states. I don't think there are many democratic countries in the world that usethe word "democracy" solely in the direct sense to which you're referring. To me "democracy" is used in opposition to "dictatorship" in that the people have a say in who rules and "republic" just means "no king or queen".

I won't quibble with that. I'm merely trying to shed some light on why the founders provided for the Senate and Electoral College, which many today in this forum see as anti-democratic. Back then, they were necessary safeguards against the tyranny of the majority to get the assent of the minority faction to supporting a federal constitution.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The way I see it is that we have a Republic that is underwritten by a Democracy. We don't vote for the laws, we vote for the people who make the laws. It's a good system. Ballot measures (roughly direct democracy) are almost always a **** show of uniformed decision making - direct democracy is, IMO, administratively impossible.

The problem we have, as most agree, is that its not a competition for the best ideas, it's boiled down to a competition of which side has the majority. Just imagine if there were no political parties and everyone ran as an independent. Just imagine how much heavy institutional crap would go away. I think we arrived at the bi-party reality for the dumbest reason: It's easier to understand and vote for the party than it is to understand and vote for an individual.

I kind of feel like the whole point of the electoral college was to get around this obstacle - you have informed and professional voters electing the president....but it's been hilariously perverted because it now just institutionalizes voter ineptitude - if I understand it correctly (and that's a big if) the electoral college was implemented to prevent the masses from electing somebody like DT45, but instead became the mechanism ensuring his ascent.

 

[TheNuvolari]

So this happened...



I am guessing the "constituent" is really a troll. I mean, I hope it is.

AOC seems to take it all in stride.

Excuse me what the actual earth, humanity.

 

[UKMikey]

Excuse me what the actual earth, humanity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

It was a little on the nose.

 

[TheNuvolari]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

I would never even dare to think about eating someone, if a person has a heart, he/she would not even say such thing.



Dammit Wikipedia, your unknown words are really pissing me off,

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I kind of feel like the whole point of the electoral college was to get around this obstacle - you have informed and professional voters electing the president....but it's been hilariously perverted because it now just institutionalizes voter ineptitude - if I understand it correctly (and that's a big if) the electoral college was implemented to prevent the masses from electing somebody like DT45, but instead became the mechanism ensuring his ascent.

The whole point of the electoral college was so that densely populated states such as California, Texas and Florida and highly populated metro cities such as New York and LOS Angeles would not be able to override the less populated states such as Montana or South Dakota making those peoples voices not have an influence in who was elected to be the President of this country.

Nothing sinister just a honest, realistic attempt to balance the voting power out to all of the states rather than have a select few highly populated states make that decision for every one.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This post is an instructive illustration of the critical misunderstanding of democracy and republic in the context of our choice of governance.

I think it actually illustrates how meanings and methods have changed over 300 years. In modern society far more people contribute to the election of representatives than could have been conceived of in the 17th* or 18th century. The modern system employed in the UK and the USA is far closer to the democracy of Madison's thoughts, employed through a system of representatives engaged by constituent areas of the country. Through time this has become our understand of democracy, our definition is correct in our time just as Madison's was in his.

* I mention the 17th century as the birth of the new parliament in Britain held some weight in the governance ideas taken to America

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Trump is reportedly blaming Rick Perry for his infamous call with the Ukrainian president

Let's just follow the chain of logic that would lead for Trump to blame Rick Perry in this situation.

1. I made the call
2. What I said on the call was wrong, and I understand this
3. Rick Perry, my subordinate, made me do it!

So the President of the United States, the most powerful man on earth, is blaming his secretary of energy for telling him to do something wrong, and he did it, knowing it was wrong. And that's his excuse. It's...beyond belief.

 

[mustafur]

If I'm not mistaken Perry only has his position because Trump put him there?

So in effect he is still at fault, by his own words.

 

[UKMikey]

I would never even dare to think about eating someone, if a person has a heart, he/she would not even say such thing.



Dammit Wikipedia, your unknown words are really pissing me off,

Do you know the word "satire"? Jonathan Swift was just trolling with this essay and I suspect the woman in the AOC video was as well.

 

[TheNuvolari]

Do you know the word "satire"? Jonathan Swift was just trolling with this essay and I suspect the woman in the AOC video was as well.

I have read that it was satirical, haven't read everything because the limited English knowledge kicked in, hopefully the woman in the video was joking as well.

 

[PocketZeven]

What is interesting that many americans revere the ones who wrote the constitution as if they were holy men. I would argue that today people are more intelligent and knowledgable then they ever were. Other countries continuously update their constitution. The US also does, but much less so.

edit: I blame the electoral college for the broken 2 party system.

 

[huskeR32]

I won't quibble with that. I'm merely trying to shed some light on why the founders provided for the Senate and Electoral College, which many today in this forum see as anti-democratic. Back then, they were necessary safeguards against the tyranny of the majority to get the assent of the minority faction to supporting a federal constitution.

Don't lump the Electoral College in with the Senate, they were not created with the same intention. It's been pointed out several times in this thread that the EC was originally conceived to appease slaveholding states, not out of some effort to support the little guy.

 

[gnomefromnome]

Shopping Online in Alaska be like

also..

sorry, shipping to your location is not available

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Shopping Online in Alaska be like

also..

Which way to Millinocket? (Like for anyone who gets this)

 

[Biggles]

The whole point of the electoral college was so that densely populated states such as California, Texas and Florida and highly populated metro cities such as New York and LOS Angeles would not be able to override the less populated states such as Montana or South Dakota making those peoples voices not have an influence in who was elected to be the President of this country.

Nothing sinister just a honest, realistic attempt to balance the voting power out to all of the states rather than have a select few highly populated states make that decision for every one.

Talk about an anachronistic argument. California, Texas, Florida, Montana, South Dakota did not exist & Los Angeles was a tiny Spanish colony at the time the electoral college was originated. To put things in perspective, the total population of the United States was only 2.5 million & among the 10 largest "metro cities" in the US was Salem, MA with a population a little over 5,000. So no, that wasn't the whole point of the electoral college.