General American Politics Thread

[Binky The Rabbit]

It seems like individuals who actually care about important issues are effectively being overruled by idiots. Maybe we should have some sort of an I.Q test requirement for voting rights. If you don't have the minimum x intelligence then you can't vote. Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me. Idiots should basically be second class citizens.

See, while I understand your sentiments, creating that sort of system brings up a load of questions about ethics and human rights, most notably equality. It's a sticky subject so I'm not going to get into it.

[Heliocentrical]

See, while I understand your sentiments, creating that sort of system brings up a load of questions about ethics and human rights, most notably equality. It's a sticky subject so I'm not going to get into it.

I agree that inequality would be pretty rampant. That's the thing with trying to come up with new systems of government is it's very easy to accidentally trample human rights. I wasn't intending to be malicious but you can clearly see that it was. I still think these systems are fun to imagine how they might work kinda like alternate history. As long as I'm not actually making someone else's life miserable then no real harm done.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Binky The Rabbit]

No worries, I know what you're getting at

 

On a different note: there was a funny moment at the end of last night's Scottish Election Debate, where the leaders were what their 'opening gambit' would be if they were phoned up by President Trump.

 

Willie Rennie (LibDem): "Get off my phone."

David Coburn (UKIP): "Come round for a game of golf and invest some money in Scotland."

Patrick Harvie (Green): "He's not gonna call me*...my jaw would be on the ground."

Ruth Davidson (Conservative): ""Could I have fries with that?", because he won't be phoning from the White House."

Kezia Dugdale (Labour): "Three simple words: "Stop preaching hate.""

Nicola Sturgeon (SNP): "Given that I stripped him of his Global Scot Status, I'm not sure he'll be wanting to phone me.."I'm on the other line.""

 

To be fair, Trump probably wouldn't be interested in phoning them either.

 

*Trump accused Patrick of blasphemy a few years back, making a formal complaint, to which the PSC went "lol no" and rejected it.

[Heliocentrical]

Onto a different topic would anyone else like to see a third party for the US? I sure would, though personally I doubt that will ever happen. A central/neutral party would perfect for keeping both the Democrats and Republicans from going off into the extreme as is currently the case. The two party system has practically no nuance to it. The closest we've got to a central/neutral opinion are people from both parties who claim to be moderate Democrats and Republicans. If you're a moderate Democrat/Republican you're still leaning to one side.

 

Or how about this could we stop trying to label nuanced opinions as either Democrat or Republican and accept them purely as opinions? All this does is fuel the existence of the flawed two party system and allows these mindsets to subsist off of attacking each other. That's all this labeling has ever done and it ultimately accomplishes nothing.That's The "us vs them" mentality in a nutshell and it's egregious for how well it serves as a road block for nuanced opinions and conversations. At this point I'd much rather say that everyone is my enemy so that my opinion can stay objective. Because that's what allies do. They catch you when you inevitably fall on your ass.

 

The way specific opinions of important issues are casually lumped together don't make sense either. For instance how can Democrats be in favor of Gun Control in order to "save lives" if they're also in favor of abortion? Which one is it "Saving Lives" or Women's Rights? It can't be both since the idea of "Saving Lives" is conflict with abortion and just be sighting that example alone people can slag me off a Republican despite whether or not that's my actual opinion because I only sited it as an example? Democrats will use this example as a means to boil down my opinion while Republicans will arbitrarily accept me as a "brother in arms" regardless of whether I want to be considered one or not. Do you see how frustrating and stupid this bullshit can get?

[Seattleite]

@Heliocentrical

1. History says this test would be an awful idea. They used to require literacy tests to vote in the south, you know what happened? They made them fucking impossible as a form of voter suppression, then enforced them mostly with the young and non-whites.

 

2. You don't understand politics if you think a third party could ever, EVER work. It simply can't in a first past the post voting system, due to something called the "spoiler effect". That's what happened when Nadar ran and partially as a result of that we got stuck with Dubya for eight years. I'll provide a very educational video on the matter once I get home.

[ThePest179]

A central/neutral party would perfect for keeping both the Democrats and Republicans from going off into the extreme as is currently the case.

 

Actually it would have the opposite of the intended effect, as (in theory) centrists would no longer remain in either party.

[Heliocentrical]

@Heliocentrical

2. You don't understand politics if you think a third party could ever, EVER work. It simply can't in a first past the post voting system, due to something called the "spoiler effect". That's what happened when Nadar ran and partially as a result of that we got stuck with Dubya for eight years. I'll provide a very educational video on the matter once I get home.

If I'm not mistaken the spoiler effect is when an independent party is created and takes away some of the votes from one of the two parties. For instance let's say the election is currently 65% for the Democrats and 45% for the Republicans. Then lets add a third party which takes away 35% of the votes for the Democrats and leaves them with only 30% of their votes left thus the Republicans end up winning the election. Is that correct or am I confusing the Spoiler effect with another term?

 

Actually it would have the opposite of the intended effect, as (in theory) centrists would no longer remain in either party.

Good point, if a third party was created the moderate Democrats/Republicans would either join the third party or fold into the rest of the extreme left/right. Leaving us with the extreme right, center and extreme left. That might actually be a lot more chaotic then I initially thought. Though I would tend to say that currently both parties are 75% extremists and 25% moderate. While more moderate Democrats/Republicans would be much better then nothing they're practically nonexistent today. I haven't found any prominent Democrats/Republicans who were also moderates.

[Seattleite]

If I'm not mistaken the spoiler effect is when an independent party is created and takes away some of the votes from one of the two parties. For instance let's say the election is currently 65% for the Democrats and 45% for the Republicans. Then lets add a third party which takes away 35% of the votes for the Democrats and leaves them with only 30% of their votes left thus the Republicans end up winning the election. Is that correct or am I confusing the Spoiler effect with another term?

 

It's generally less extreme than that, but that's the gist of it. All it does is hurt the candidate closest to you if you run in a third party.

 

Here, CGP Grey will explain it, using a hypothetical:

s7tWHJfhiyo

 

And before somebody says "Well, do you have a better idea?", this video is the first part of a series on EXACTLY THAT, so I don't have to do a thing.

 

 

Good point if a third party was created the moderate Democrats/Republicans would either join the third party or fold into the rest of the extreme left/right. Leaving us with the extreme right, center and extreme left. That might actually be a lot more chaotic then I initially thought.

 

We do not need another centrist party in the United States, we already only have the right-wing republicans and centre-right democrats, and no left-wing politicians. (Even Sanders and Warren are only centre-left.)

[Heliocentrical]

@Seattleite I've watched all the videos and now my main question is do we the citizens have any power to ensure that better voting systems like MMP and STV get implemented? I knew that there were much better voting systems then First Past the Post(I'm pretty sure I've seen those particular CGPGrey videos before). My actual doubt comes from whether or not we can spread these ideas effectively, they reach someone with enough political power to implement them and that this person gives a damn about US citizens' happiness with the voting system. I'm convinced there isn't any hope for this because if there was this would have been dealt with years ago.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Guest (see edit history)

[Seattleite]

@Seattleite I've watched all the videos and now my main question is do we the citizens have any power to ensure that better voting systems like MMP and STV get implemented?

 

NOPE! Ain't life just fucking grand?

[Heliocentrical]

NOPE! Ain't life just fucking grand?

Figured, can't say I expected anything more from the US government. That's the nice thing about pessimism. It keeps your expectations in check. I know that they will never be surpassed. They Therefore they can be lowered indefinitely and I will remain unaffected and apathetic. CGPGrey's videos will sadly amount to nothing more then helping you sleep at night so you don't hang yourself the following day. The voting systems are there but US Governments ability to give a damn isn't. I guess I can say they were atleast enlightening. But then what's the point of having the right ideas if you can't do anything with them? I can say I was right but that's pretty pathetic in of itself.

[Descriptor]

Onto a different topic would anyone else like to see a third party for the US? I sure would, though personally I doubt that will ever happen. A central/neutral party would perfect for keeping both the Democrats and Republicans from going off into the extreme as is currently the case. The two party system has practically no nuance to it. The closest we've got to a central/neutral opinion are people from both parties who claim to be moderate Democrats and Republicans. If you're a moderate Democrat/Republican you're still leaning to one side.

 

Or how about this could we stop trying to label nuanced opinions as either Democrat or Republican and accept them purely as opinions? All this does is fuel the existence of the flawed two party system and allows these mindsets to subsist off of attacking each other. That's all this labeling has ever done and it ultimately accomplishes nothing.That's The "us vs them" mentality in a nutshell and it's egregious for how well it serves as a road block for nuanced opinions and conversations. At this point I'd much rather say that everyone is my enemy so that my opinion can stay objective. Because that's what allies do. They catch you when you inevitably fall on your ass.

 

The way specific opinions of important issues are casually lumped together don't make sense either. For instance how can Democrats be in favor of Gun Control in order to "save lives" if they're also in favor of abortion? Which one is it "Saving Lives" or Women's Rights? It can't be both since the idea of "Saving Lives" is conflict with abortion and just be sighting that example alone people can slag me off a Republican despite whether or not that's my actual opinion because I only sited it as an example? Democrats will use this example as a means to boil down my opinion while Republicans will arbitrarily accept me as a "brother in arms" regardless of whether I want to be considered one or not. Do you see how frustrating and stupid this bullshit can get?

As a radical moderate, you can count me among the Third-party folks.

And screw that spoiler crap, considering neither party is any good anymore. Sure, the Republicans have gotten especially crazy pants as of late, but the Democrats aren't especially all that much better. They're just better at hiding it.

Coincidentally, this article just came out explaining how screwed up things have gotten with the two-party system:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/ralph-nader-why-bernie-sanders-was-right-to-run-as-a-democrat/

[Seattleite]

My notes as it was ongoing are under the spoiler tags.

 

 

Well, I only know how it went for my district (just got back from voting), and we swept the district with close to 90%. Our district was also one of the most likely to go for Hillary, so the fact that we had a monumental shut-out here of all places means we're probably looking at a shut-out today state-wide.

 

Currently at 7% reporting, and we're at 75.3%-24.7%, with mostly the districts that finished early so far being recorded. (And those are likely to favour Hillary, as those would be the low-turnout areas.) So yeah, this is a shut-out.

 

Lincoln county's in! And it's Bernie, FORTY. FIVE. POINT. LEAD. We are now at 11.11% reporting with 73.57%-26.06% with 0.37% uncommitted. Yeah, we're kicking so much ass today that a 45.16% margin moved our average DOWN. More of this massacre as it develops.

 

The slaughter continues! Now with 13.89% reporting, 73.97%-25.93%, with 0.28% uncommitted. He's won EVERY county so far, my county being the only county that has reported anything and isn't at 100%, and he's winning here by 43 points. 8-ball, corner pocket.

 

Massacre update. 19.44% reporting, now Bernie leads 75.84%-23.86%, which is a 51.98% margin. Going to update less frequently from here.

 

ALASKA HAS JUST BEEN CALLED. Bernie wins HUGE, 78.7%-21.3% with 38% reporting.

 

Back to Washington. 29.17% reporting, Bernie up 77.3%-22.51%, a 54.79% margin. Why haven't they called it yet?

 

He just took King, HARD. He is now winning absolutely everywhere, call the state already.

 

They just called it! Washington goes to Bernie, 76.04% with 30.56% reporting. It's over, she got fucking KILLED tonight.

 

Now to just watch and wait for Hawaii. It's a primary and we have NO polling data. So it's a complete mystery what's going to happen, but if Bernie wins all three states tonight I cannot fucking WAIT to see the corporate media make excuses for her.

 

 

Final results are in. But before I list them... We need some music. Appropriate music for the results we got.

 

QAnky-QJwII

 

In Washington, Bernie won with 72.7% of the vote to Hillary's 27.1% of the vote, picking up 25 delegates to her 9.

 

In Alaska, Bernie won 81.6% of the vote to Hillary's 18.4% of the vote, picking up 13 delegates to her 3.

 

In Hawaii, Bernie won 69.8% of the vote to Hillary's 30.0% of the vote, picking up 17 delegates to her 8.

 

In total, Bernie picked up 55 delegates and Hillary picked up 20. That is, he got 73% of the delegates by crushing her in all three states. That's what we like to call a "blowout".

[Descriptor]

My notes as it was ongoing are under the spoiler tags.

 

 

Well, I only know how it went for my district (just got back from voting), and we swept the district with close to 90%. Our district was also one of the most likely to go for Hillary, so the fact that we had a monumental shut-out here of all places means we're probably looking at a shut-out today state-wide.

 

Currently at 7% reporting, and we're at 75.3%-24.7%, with mostly the districts that finished early so far being recorded. (And those are likely to favour Hillary, as those would be the low-turnout areas.) So yeah, this is a shut-out.

 

Lincoln county's in! And it's Bernie, FORTY. FIVE. POINT. LEAD. We are now at 11.11% reporting with 73.57%-26.06% with 0.37% uncommitted. Yeah, we're kicking so much ass today that a 45.16% margin moved our average DOWN. More of this massacre as it develops.

 

The slaughter continues! Now with 13.89% reporting, 73.97%-25.93%, with 0.28% uncommitted. He's won EVERY county so far, my county being the only county that has reported anything and isn't at 100%, and he's winning here by 43 points. 8-ball, corner pocket.

 

Massacre update. 19.44% reporting, now Bernie leads 75.84%-23.86%, which is a 51.98% margin. Going to update less frequently from here.

 

ALASKA HAS JUST BEEN CALLED. Bernie wins HUGE, 78.7%-21.3% with 38% reporting.

 

Back to Washington. 29.17% reporting, Bernie up 77.3%-22.51%, a 54.79% margin. Why haven't they called it yet?

 

He just took King, HARD. He is now winning absolutely everywhere, call the state already.

 

They just called it! Washington goes to Bernie, 76.04% with 30.56% reporting. It's over, she got fucking KILLED tonight.

 

Now to just watch and wait for Hawaii. It's a primary and we have NO polling data. So it's a complete mystery what's going to happen, but if Bernie wins all three states tonight I cannot fucking WAIT to see the corporate media make excuses for her.

 

 

Final results are in. But before I list them... We need some music. Appropriate music for the results we got.

 

QAnky-QJwII

 

In Washington, Bernie won with 72.7% of the vote to Hillary's 27.1% of the vote, picking up 25 delegates to her 9.

 

In Alaska, Bernie won 81.6% of the vote to Hillary's 18.4% of the vote, picking up 13 delegates to her 3.

 

In Hawaii, Bernie won 69.8% of the vote to Hillary's 30.0% of the vote, picking up 17 delegates to her 8.

 

In total, Bernie picked up 55 delegates and Hillary picked up 20. That is, he got 73% of the delegates by crushing her in all three states. That's what we like to call a "blowout".

Washington actually has 101 delegates to hand out, so the count still isn't finished. From the looks of it, the Sandman will be getting over 100 delegates after all is said and done.

[Seattleite]

Washington actually has 101 delegates to hand out, so the count still isn't finished. From the looks of it, the Sandman will be getting over 100 delegates after all is said and done.

 

Yeah, I know, I noticed that while writing and it's very, very weird. If there's still another 69 delegates and they have 100% reporting, why exactly are the other 69 delegates not allotted yet? I mean, I know, very sophisticated math, takes a while, but let me see if I can do it.

 

*AHEM*

 

101*.727=73.427

101-73=28.

Sanders 73, Clinton 28.

 

Oh, wait, that math wasn't hard AT ALL. I didn't even need a fucking calculator.

 

And yeah, looks like 103 total delegates for Sanders, to 39 for Clinton. Epic win for Birdie Sanders today. (Have you seen that, by the way? It's just silly little thing that happened at a Sanders rally in Oregon.)

 

 

 

 

"I think... I think there may be some symbolism here."

[Binky The Rabbit]

the Sandman

I like that nickname. If he were to walk out to 'Enter Sandman', that would be beautiful.

 

Not sure about the possible messages it may send out though. Also I doubt Metallica would approve. Still though.

[Descriptor]

Washington actually has 101 delegates to hand out, so the count still isn't finished. From the looks of it, the Sandman will be getting over 100 delegates after all is said and done.

 

Yeah, I know, I noticed that while writing and it's very, very weird. If there's still another 69 delegates and they have 100% reporting, why exactly are the other 69 delegates not allotted yet? I mean, I know, very sophisticated math, takes a while, but let me see if I can do it.

 

*AHEM*

 

101*.727=73.427

101-73=28.

Sanders 73, Clinton 28.

 

Oh, wait, that math wasn't hard AT ALL. I didn't even need a fucking calculator.

 

And yeah, looks like 103 total delegates for Sanders, to 39 for Clinton. Epic win for Birdie Sanders today. (Have you seen that, by the way? It's just silly little thing that happened at a Sanders rally in Oregon.)

 

 

 

 

"I think... I think there may be some symbolism here."

So I learned something weird today...

So, has anyone looked up U.S. income tax history on Wikipedia before?

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

Specifically, this chart:

 

 

Although I've heard people suggest that there were a lot more tax deductions back then, too, but still. Crazy.

 

Also, this line is pretty crazy: "In pursuit of equality (rather than revenue) President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000."

 

And they say Colonel Sanders is un-electable. Remember, FDR was so popular, they had to create a new amendment due to him getting more than two terms.

[Seattleite]

And FDR beat bill after bill through an obstructionist congress, used more executive actions than any president in history, and erased opposition through threats of career destruction to the most obstructionist senators. (Basically, he threatened to primary them and endorse their opponents, which would knock most of them out of office and potentially end some of their careers.)

 

From a political standpoint, the man was fucking brutal, but that's what we needed. Not sure Sanders can be that aggressive, but I don't doubt he'll get a lot done too.

[RandomGuy]

With Clinton's 16-point victory in New York, the Democratic primaries are pretty much over.Three guesses on why she curb-stomped Bernie in that state, and the first two don't count.

 

 

She won African-Americans 75-25 and Latinos 65-35. Same reason for her massive victories in Texas and Florida, as well as the 'Deep South' for the former. She also won 62-38 among registered Democrats and had larger margins of victory for the poor, lower middle class, and rich than she did with the upper middle class (45% of people in the 100k-200k bracket voted for Sanders, the closest of any income demographic, while 60% of <30k earners and 57% of 30k-50k earners voted for Clinton). Here are the only demographics where Bernie won:

 

White men (57%)

18-24 year olds (81%)

25-29 year olds (53%)

whites with no degree (55%)

Non-religious (57%)

Independents (72%)

Unmarried men (64%)

 

 

So, same pattern as always.

[Descriptor]

So I found a very fascinating article about the whole Trump thing that raises a lot of interesting historical contexts. Check it out:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html