Election Season 2024 (United States)

[Oniya]

Have you tried - rather than stating your position on immigration - saying something like 'Mom, I'd really rather not discuss politics.' in a very neutral tone.  Repeat until she stops, like a recording.  It's not quite grey-rocking, since any other topic is fair game, but it might break the cycle and head off any fighting.

[Laughing Hyena]

Have you tried - rather than stating your position on immigration - saying something like 'Mom, I'd really rather not discuss politics.' in a very neutral tone.  Repeat until she stops, like a recording.  It's not quite grey-rocking, since any other topic is fair game, but it might break the cycle and head off any fighting.

Fortunately I didn't state my position on such since I knew it would turn into an argument. So I kept silent. 

I honestly haven't tried that. I'm not too certain if she'd drop it though without asking why. Honestly though it should be self explanatory since I don't want to get into a heated argument. But I can give it a shot the next time it comes up.

[Oniya]

I struggle with this a lot with topics other than politics - but actively stating that 'here's the line' turns it into a conscious choice for her to keep going, compared to accepting your silence as a tacit approval to continue.

[Laughing Hyena]

Thank you for the advice Oniya. I appreciate it immensely.

[Oniya]

My own worries for this cycle is what I see at work.  Even though politics are one of those topics that are discouraged at work, there are enough side-comments for me to see that there's a distinct (and predictable) divide between the management and the hourly employees. 

Most of my immediate co-workers are decently knowledgeable about social issues (the one major exception is a guy who has been somehow insulated to the point of naivety), but they've bought into the 'they're all crooks' and 'my vote won't make a difference' rhetorics and don't even consider voting on issues, let alone candidates.  We've had conversations that could have been fractious, except that I'm that weird Gen-X lady who wears a pronoun pin, laughs at the dirty jokes, and actually knows what 'redlining' is (and helped explain it to that one guy). 

Meanwhile, the upper levels, who are only vaguely aware of when their paychecks hit the banks, don't seem to understand what all the fuss is about - but they vote because 'it's what you do'.

Now, if everyone in the store voted, the hourly folks would outnumber the salary folks - and while neither group is monolithic, the number of outliers in each group isn't game-changing.

[Missy]

I know it's been a while since thus topic got any traction and I'm glad it was quiet but I just need to type and let something off my chest. This election already has me stressed due to the fact my own mother and aunt watch RAN hosted by Bannon, Kirk and such.

I don't listen to it because I know it's rubbish, fear mongering  and propaganda. But my mom and aunt do parrot it and sometimes it seems like it's all they talk about. From the issues of real estate and rent and their biggest gripe immigration. I was coming home with my own mother and what seemed innocent enough turned into a one sided conversation about the "millions of illegals" coming across the border.

I love my mother and I think the world of her and it hurts me deeply to hear her speak like this. Last time a year ago this was a full scale argument and I promised not to fight like this again. So I kept my mouth shut but she just kept talking the whole time.

It feels like that's all they talk about. She asked me a few questions, if I believe what she said. I don't answer but she was willing to take my silence as that. She says look it up but I know where she gets her info from and I do not trust it. Even asking me if I would vote for anyone else like RFK besides who I intended to. Point blank asking who I'd vote for. All I can say is "I vote behind a curtain."

The best thing I can do is walk away from that argument but I know it's gonna come up again.

I know I cannot change her mind just as I know I won't change my mind or throw my vote away just to let a man like Donald Trump do what he wants and turn my country into something I was warned about in late elementary, junior high, and high school.

I just want this cycle to end and barring proof that God exists and literally strikes 45 down with lightning I am not voting for who she backs much less a republican.

My sister, my aunt, my mom, my grandma. Feels like I'm fighting the whole damn world.

Thank heavens for my brother and sister in law having a decent mind and being on the same stance as me, but I dunno how I can keep enduring this after eight years and it only gets worse.

This is why I hate Trump. He drives such a wedge between people and it just hurts my damn soul because now I have to fight with people I love more than most.

I'm just worried that by doing what I feel is the correct desicion that I will lose my family. Just because I'm not voting the way they want.

Aye, this is one of the most frustrating features of the modern age, we've all just lost our respect for one another. I actually fairly fortunate myself one of my best coworkers can say abortions murder and I can say it's not and we have enough respect for one another that we can move on from the subject if we can't agree on it. H3 usually ends up telling me about the classic car he's been building from absolute scratch for a while, I,  not a car person, but I don't mind listening to him about it at all, it can be kind of interesting, especially since he just started upthe motor he built from scratch for the first time recently, pretty impressive stuff. I guess I wish I knew how to adjust societies course so people. Could have that kind of respect again.

[Callie Del Noire]

My own worries for this cycle is what I see at work.  Even though politics are one of those topics that are discouraged at work, there are enough side-comments for me to see that there's a distinct (and predictable) divide between the management and the hourly employees. 

Most of my immediate co-workers are decently knowledgeable about social issues (the one major exception is a guy who has been somehow insulated to the point of naivety), but they've bought into the 'they're all crooks' and 'my vote won't make a difference' rhetorics and don't even consider voting on issues, let alone candidates.  We've had conversations that could have been fractious, except that I'm that weird Gen-X lady who wears a pronoun pin, laughs at the dirty jokes, and actually knows what 'redlining' is (and helped explain it to that one guy). 

Meanwhile, the upper levels, who are only vaguely aware of when their paychecks hit the banks, don't seem to understand what all the fuss is about - but they vote because 'it's what you do'.

Now, if everyone in the store voted, the hourly folks would outnumber the salary folks - and while neither group is monolithic, the number of outliers in each group isn't game-changing.

The my vote doesn’t count is BS. bush won three districts by literally a small handful of votes. I had two airmen saying that and I showed them the news piece and highlighted that half the folks eligible to vote didn’t registered. And of that 50% only about 50% of that actively vote. So a quarter bother to vote. 

[LostInTheMist]

I'm gonna stick to my position that the only wasted vote is a vote that isn't cast.

[ClarkKent]

I'll be voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Probably Biden, assuming he's still alive at that point. The reason for this is that I really want to still have a vote that counts in 2028, and if the Republicans win, even if it's not Trump, I probably won't. 

So I recently saw something online about Michelle Obama was potentially going to run as the Democratic nominee. Though she had publicly said that she had no interest in running for president, in the past, I think she would actually be a viable candidate. She would be able to use more of her husband's platform and continue making change. 

It truly is devastating what is happening in our country. I am devastated that these people who are arguing for Trump are making excuses for him when they were passionately chanting to "Lock Hillary Up" just a few years back. We truly need a non-geriatric candidate, someone who understands the world as it is now, not 50 years ago when you could buy a house for a nickel. 

[Oniya]

Mrs. Obama has been saying for years that she has no intention to run for president.  The most recent article I saw making that statement was March 5 of this year, while the most recent article suggesting that she was 'a contender' was on Feb 28 - about a week before that refusal.

I also noted an opinion column on Politico that drops this rumor squarely in the laps of folks like DeSantis and Ted Cruz - hardly Democratic insiders.

A little further digging, and it's looking like this whole thing may have originated with a FOX News host in May of 2023.  (This was promptly fact-checked on-air in real time, but... well.)

Upshot is that she polls well - people like her - but she has no interest in being swapped in. 

[ClarkKent]

Well that is quite a disappointment. Thanks for all the articles, that is honestly super helpful!

I think if she put her name on the ballot she'd be a shoe in. We need someone who is brave enough to say what needs to be said. 

This whole defiance with Trump is just fear mongering and genuinely makes me fear that he wants to change the state of the country to a dictatorship. 

[LostInTheMist]

And of course it's too late for her to run this year anyway. All the state and territory primaries have been run. There are two caucuses left to go, one in Guam, the other in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Even if 100% of those went to Michelle Obama, she wouldn't even be a footnote at the convention. The only way it could conceivably happen would be if Biden were to die between now and the Democratic Convention. Even then, even if she were convinced to stand for nomination, the convention would almost certainly pick Harris to run in his place (as she would be the incumbent President at that point.) Even though she'd almost certainly be walloped by Trump.

But Michelle Obama has no interest in running in any case, so even if there were an opening, it wouldn't happen. 

The FOX News bit in May 2023 might have been an attempt by FOX News (basically the propaganda arm of the Republican Party) to discourage Democrats from supporting Biden, in the hopes that Michelle Obama would run instead. Also to fire up the Republican base, who fear what a black woman would do in power.

[ClarkKent]

Honestly, I didn't even realize that she couldn't go on the ballot if she didn't get certified on a state or territory caucus. I thought she only had to be certified at the Democratic Convention. I knew the chances were slim, but I'm also not surprised that these articles are being recirculated into the media to change people's perception of time. 

While I do think that Michelle Obama would be an amazing candidate, I can see how it would be fear mongering on the far right.

In all honesty, I think that there needs to be a serious reconstruction of all of our positions in power in the country. We could benefit from a few major changes to our political landscape with just a few changes:

• An amendment that the bills presented to Congress and the House of Representatives could contain no more than a single action items. 
• A set of term limits for both Congress and the House of Representatives (should also be at the state levels)
• A mandate that those sitting in Congress and the House of Representatives's incomes would be that of the median income from whichever state they represent. 
• An amendment that secondary income (excess of $10k) cannot be received by all public officials, their staff, their family, and those in their cabinet, for one year before and at least 5 years after they hold office. This includes gifts, stipends, donations, and other non-essential forms of monetary exchange. 
• An amendment that all bodies that receive government funding or that receive a tax-exempt status must post their complete financial records in a public form, so they can be assessed by the public, within 4 months after a fiscal year end. This does include the federal government as well. 
• No governing body may perform a sole internal audit or rely solely on an internal ethics review. Both reviews must be sent to a non-affiliating body and are subject to question before a higher court if false-findings are determined. 
• Those serving in the higher courts, including the supreme court, are subject to an annual ethics review. If it is determined that they have violated the ethics standards that were in place during the time period of their review, they should be removed from office. 

Sorry, I may have gone on a rant, but I really think those changes would establish more accountability for those serving in public office and ensure that this fear-mongering and deception of the American people would be lessened. 

I also think the IRS should just tell us how much we owe or will receive without having to guess every year and risk going to jail if we are wrong, but that's a topic for another rant. lol

[LostInTheMist]

Your first change would bring the entire government to a halt:

• An amendment that the bills presented to Congress and the House of Representatives could contain no more than a single action items.

No more budgets I guess? Or large-scale health bills? Or education? Social Security? All these bills have many, many action items, because that's the way it goes, that's how government works, like it or not. You give me something I want, I give you something you want. And if we had to do each bit of those large bills one at a time, Congress would be working 16 hours days 365 days a year, and still wouldn't get any of them done. The budget alone is thousands of pages long.

This one is a massive government overreach:
 

• A set of term limits for both Congress and the House of Representatives (should also be at the state levels)

Some states do have term limits for the house and senate, and some states have limits on state level elected officials. They are allowed to decide these on the state level. Who they send to the congress has to qualify to sit in congress, but whether that person can sit for 20 terms or two terms is up to the state to decide. No person in my state can serve more than two consecutive terms as governor. (Though after they've been out of the governor's mansion for a term, they can run again.)

This one is problematic too:

• A mandate that those sitting in Congress and the House of Representatives's incomes would be that of the median income from whichever state they represent.

Most members of the federal government, like a Congressman must keep at least two residences. One in their home district, and one in Washington (or nearby). Most people can't, on the median income of their state, keep one home, let alone two.

One of your other changes would absolutely destroy my entire state's government.

• An amendment that secondary income (excess of $10k) cannot be received by all public officials, their staff, their family, and those in their cabinet, for one year before and at least 5 years after they hold office. This includes gifts, stipends, donations, and other non-essential forms of monetary exchange. 

The issue with this in my state is that the government (State Senate and House) only meets every other year, and every state official earns less than $20,000 per year. The idea is that every state representative needs to have a normal day job in order to serve. And it generally has to be a job where they can be absent a lot, so we have substitute teachers and small business owners and so on. Your amendment would make it so that only the independently wealthy could work in government in my state.

Another two that are problems:

• An amendment that all bodies that receive government funding or that receive a tax-exempt status must post their complete financial records in a public form, so they can be assessed by the public, within 4 months after a fiscal year end. This does include the federal government as well.
• No governing body may perform a sole internal audit or rely solely on an internal ethics review. Both reviews must be sent to a non-affiliating body and are subject to question before a higher court if false-findings are determined. 

The Federal government has expenses that cannot be disclosed to the public for valid national security reasons. So do many companies and organizations that receive government grants. Similar security (and greater security) often applies to audits. Internal audits are a necessity.

And let's just round it out:

• Those serving in the higher courts, including the supreme court, are subject to an annual ethics review. If it is determined that they have violated the ethics standards that were in place during the time period of their review, they should be removed from office. 

I personally have no problem with this one. But those reviews would be politically motivated, and justices would have to rule on cases with an eye to remaining in power, rather than with an eye to impartiality. Life time appointments are made so that the justices of the given court will (in theory) be impartial, because they don't have any fear of politically motivated witch hunts removing them. (They can be impeached, but it is rightly, extremely difficult to do.)

Your ideas come from a good place, but the country is a complicated place, and easy solutions to entrenched institutions just don't exist.

[LostInTheMist]

*Apologies for the formatting problems in the above post. It all looked fine when I previewed it, but....

[Oniya]

I see where Clark is coming from with the 'single-action' items.  There are too many situations where a 'rider' on a particular bill has resulted in either a good thing (the bill itself) getting rejected or a bad thing (the otherwise unrelated rider) getting approved.

Something along the lines of requiring bills to be 'cohesive' - that is to say, all parts have a clear relation to each other - could go a long way towards reforming legislation without unduly stagnating it. 

As far as the whole 'I'll give you this if you'll give me that' - it only requires that the compromise would involve related issues.  For example:  I'll give you this budget clause to implement renewable energy, but you have to include a budget clause to help retrain and re-employ workers in the fossil fuel industry.  Not: I'll give you this budget clause to implement renewable energy, but you have to include a clause that bans hospitals from providing gender affirming treatments.

[LostInTheMist]

I see where Clark is coming from with the 'single-action' items.  There are too many situations where a 'rider' on a particular bill has resulted in either a good thing (the bill itself) getting rejected or a bad thing (the otherwise unrelated rider) getting approved.

Something along the lines of requiring bills to be 'cohesive' - that is to say, all parts have a clear relation to each other - could go a long way towards reforming legislation without unduly stagnating it. 

As far as the whole 'I'll give you this if you'll give me that' - it only requires that the compromise would involve related issues.  For example:  I'll give you this budget clause to implement renewable energy, but you have to include a budget clause to help retrain and re-employ workers in the fossil fuel industry.  Not: I'll give you this budget clause to implement renewable energy, but you have to include a clause that bans hospitals from providing gender affirming treatments.

This is something that seems reasonable to me. It wouldn't work, unfortunately. The new thing would be "I'll vote with you on this bill for renewable energy, if you'll vote with me on the bill to ban hospitals from providing gender affirming treatments."

Give people horses and they'll trade horses. Take the horses away and they'll trade horseshoes.

[Oniya]

While we can't legislate away human nature, that kind of 'horseshoe' trading would be more above-board.  With the rider situation, you get people pointing at reps that vote against a good bill because of a bad rider, and saying 'Look at that lawmaker!  They say they're in favor of GoodThing, but they voted against it!'

With the 'single topic' restriction, the traders would each need to make the decision of 'Will making this agreement fuck up my political career?' before voting for a bill that they wouldn't normally back.

[ClarkKent]

Something along the lines of requiring bills to be 'cohesive' - that is to say, all parts have a clear relation to each other - could go a long way towards reforming legislation without unduly stagnating it.

I think this is what I was initially trying to say. Not one action item, but one topic. If the bill is covering the budget, it should cover the budget. We shouldn't have a social security bill that also has billions in foreign aid buried within its pages.

Please know, I am trying to explain my point of view with my next few replies, not tell you that you are wrong. Sometimes I find it harder to explain my whole position in one simple statement, and of course there are always exceptions to the rule.

Some states do have term limits for the house and senate, and some states have limits on state level elected officials. They are allowed to decide these on the state level. Who they send to the congress has to qualify to sit in congress, but whether that person can sit for 20 terms or two terms is up to the state to decide. No person in my state can serve more than two consecutive terms as governor. (Though after they've been out of the governor's mansion for a term, they can run again.)

I would be fine if this were set up across the board so others had the chance to be elected and we could have a free flow of ideas. My thought process was more so that someone who grew up with segregation and has not fully changed their view is probably not the best person to be making calls on the rights of its citizens. We should not have people servig who are incapable of making their own medical decisions.

Most members of the federal government, like a Congressman must keep at least two residences. One in their home district, and one in Washington (or nearby). Most people can't, on the median income of their state, keep one home, let alone two.

Why do they have to go to Washington? The pandemic showed that they could attend virtually and vote virtually. That was more my idea. Also, if we had government housing for when they "had" to be in person, they wouldn't need to maintain it. It could be something as simple as a set of condos that are used by government officials. And let's face it, the upkeep of condo complex would not break the bank of our congressional budget.

One of your other changes would absolutely destroy my entire state's government.

• An amendment that secondary income (excess of $10k) cannot be received by all public officials, their staff, their family, and those in their cabinet, for one year before and at least 5 years after they hold office. This includes gifts, stipends, donations, and other non-essential forms of monetary exchange.

The issue with this in my state is that the government (State Senate and House) only meets every other year, and every state official earns less than $20,000 per year. The idea is that every state representative needs to have a normal day job in order to serve. And it generally has to be a job where they can be absent a lot, so we have substitute teachers and small business owners and so on. Your amendment would make it so that only the independently wealthy could work in government in my state.

My view was that this limit was that they could not receive income in forms of donations, gifts, or bribes. Since they are making under 400% of the federal poverty line, them working a second job would be classified as an essential form of monetary exchange. Additionally, they would be paid the median income of the state, which would be a motivating factor for them to improve the financial livelihood of its citizens.

Another two that are problems:

• An amendment that all bodies that receive government funding or that receive a tax-exempt status must post their complete financial records in a public form, so they can be assessed by the public, within 4 months after a fiscal year end. This does include the federal government as well.
• No governing body may perform a sole internal audit or rely solely on an internal ethics review. Both reviews must be sent to a non-affiliating body and are subject to question before a higher court if false-findings are determined.

The Federal government has expenses that cannot be disclosed to the public for valid national security reasons. So do many companies and organizations that receive government grants. Similar security (and greater security) often applies to audits. Internal audits are a necessity.

Things that are protected by national security could be redacted for reasons of national security. I was more thinking of frivolous spending, like spending $40k to pay to "repaint an office". Or other erroneous expenditures that have come to light.

[Twisted Crow]

It is hard to feel confident in a system where my state hasn't gone blue since before Star Wars hit theatres. Will I still have my small part to play in this? Sure. But I won't pretend that my efforts will make any impact. The downsides of not being able to live anywhere else but Texas usually resurface for me every 4 years. 

[LostInTheMist]

Why do they have to go to Washington? The pandemic showed that they could attend virtually and vote virtually.

House and Senate rules were amended to temporarily (and only temporarily) allow virtual attendance and voting. The rules were temporarily amended due to the pandemic emergency, but the rules that require showing up to vote and do not allow for proxy voting remain. And there are good reasons for this. It's easy or quicker to put together a subcommittee meeting, to have low level staffers take meetings with one another and with outsiders, to coordinate with the White House or between the houses of congress, etc. Without a physical presence, things would soon slow to even more of a crawl than the crawl they already move at. So those representatives who don't live within commuting distance of the State Capital have to maintain a residence there. Which requires a higher income than is typical of the state.

I'm not saying that things can't be changed. I'm just saying that let's recognize that our elected officials by necessity do have some expenses that ordinary Americans don't.

One of my friend's ideas was to have every elected official on the Federal level compete in a (televised) "Battle Royale" every two years, with the sole survivor becoming the President. Some days I think, "why not?"

[TheGlyphstone]

I've advocated on multiple occasions to replace our current legislative system with trial by combat and reduce the deficit by making C-SPAN a pay-per-view blood sport channel. 

[Missy]

Oughta build an apartment complex for the representatives then, save the money they spend on their residences to cover the costs of maintenance for a building they can all live in.

[LostInTheMist]

Oughta build an apartment complex for the representatives then, save the money they spend on their residences to cover the costs of maintenance for a building they can all live in.

This might actually work. We could get someone to design a residential building that fits in with the current D.C. skyline, or have them live in Maryland outside DC with shuttle service to the Capitol building. Make the apartments large and comfortable enough to house the Representative or Senator's family, but not vast and sprawling. Not that Congress would ever actually approve such a change. But it's a good idea.

[Oniya]

This might actually work. We could get someone to design a residential building that fits in with the current D.C. skyline, or have them live in Maryland outside DC with shuttle service to the Capitol building. Make the apartments large and comfortable enough to house the Representative or Senator's family, but not vast and sprawling. Not that Congress would ever actually approve such a change. But it's a good idea.

Why build?  https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/empty-eyesores-dozens-of-blighted-homes-sit-for-decade-or-more/3354655/  I'd bet money that many of these buildings (and there are a fair number in the northern half of the District) are still vacant.  If you zoom in, there are about 30 actually in the Capitol Hill region, and literally hundreds city-wide, just under the 'vacant' classification.