Can We Fix Politics?

[Notorious]

I think I said as much in another debate topic, but I'm about as middle isle as it gets. I'm from the very conservative south(Louisiana) where the mullets roam free and the people hunt the gators rather than the inverse. I'm born to conservative values in a conservative family, though they're all actually pretty light on the politics in all honesty, which I greatly appreciate. So I hold family, community and conservative base values near and dear to my heart, but I've completely shed my skin of the Republicans which most should be able to understand I grew up very much believing in... when I was younger and more naive(no offense to any Republicans, or Democrats for that matter because I'm about to go in on them too). That's before I noticed the likes of McConnall, Graham and Cruz and people like them showing the world exactly what I admire the least in people. Cruz will push buttons sometimes and that's just fun to watch play out, but other than that he plays ball and heels when told to heel and McConnall and Graham are basically corporate lapdogs from what I can tell who don't really give the first shit about anything but how many zeros their bank account has on any given day. They never really step out of line because they're paid, pocketed, weak willed cowards and they embarrass half the nation as a daily routine. They are paid off, corporate shills. They're grossly incompetent idiots who only ever really make waves when they're bitching at their own party members like the clowns they are.

So when I turned about 15-16 I was on the Democrat boat, which only lasted... about two or three years I think? And I've always been sort of a... "Progressive Light" if I were made into a beer, lol. Thought Bush was an idiot, hack and a crook, just like the rest of his family so I voted for Obama as my first ever vote in a presidential election. Then I watched him do next to nothing for minorities who had stuffed his ballot box along with me, and after a few years realized he was just as bad as the rest. He basically took a four year long shit. Despite that, though, I was... VERY... close to voting for him that second time, but ultimately I decided against it and eventually became independent. Haven't voted since. More because he'd disappointed me so badly after I felt so sure and so happy with him initially only for him to just turn out to be the same old, same old. After all that hype and support surrounding our first black president ever who spoke so elegantly and inspired so many I was sold in the beginning of those first four years, and then I realized that even he wasn't really any better than the rest of the scoundrels that pretend they're anything close to leaders and forerunners of political balance and fairness. Pelosi's cute little temper tantrums behind Trump ripping his speech with that saggy smile on her face was funny, but it's not becoming of the Speaker of the house, and as far as I can tell her scumbag husband has been inside trading for decades. No one's stock portfolio is that perfect unless there's some shady shit going on, and she's worth way more money than the average politician from what I've read. Schumer seems to be the Sin of Greed's right hand man and the rest of them on the left(in politics) are all the same to me as well. The problem for me isn't that one side is pure evil, which lets be honest with one another, most of us are raised to believe that one side IS... pure evil and that "our team" is the good, just and stalwart saviors of the people. The unsettling reality is that these people are all pretty shit people. And who the hell else was I going to vote for in 2012 if not Obama anyway? Romney? ...pfthaha xD

Mitt Romney is literally wearing an old, retired, McConnall type Republican skinsuit. He's the biggest pretender in politics, and pretty much everybody knows it. I've even heard Democrats take a crap on him for it a few times(New Orleans is pretty blue politically and I've been down that way a lot in my life even living there for a short time, which is my way of citing some of these Liberal opinions on fools like Romney). He's a fraud, and despite my resentment for the rest of these morons regardless of what side of the isle they stand on, Romney's at the very bottom of that disgusting barrel of spineless, sycophantic losers.

The fact of the matter is the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans, and the Republicans are NOT your heroes come to save the American working man/woman, and no matter how hard some people are going to grit their teeth and argue internally with themselves that it isn't the truth, they should know I'm right on this one. You don't have to agree with me, and you don't have to admit it to me, but I expect that for some of you it'll itch, and scratch, and gnaw at the back of your mind so much that it makes you want to put your first through a wall before you admit it at least to yourself. And in that moment maybe you'll find a way to relax and just accept that there are many, pressing problems with America, but number one on the list should be our crap political system and the Politician villains who use that broken system against its own people. Because it frustrates me too, and it doesn't appear that we can do much about it. It's just all a big, stupid performance being played out on the world stage for all of us silly plebeians to eat up. Because that's what keeps us hating one another rather than holding the right people accountable. People start taking it out on politicians and some other tragedy crops up because we just can't help ourselves. We just let these assholes manipulate us and keep us screaming at one another, but for what? Because you've got the gun situations figured out? You know when a life begins or when it ends scientifically? You're so sure you've got the best ideas. The best opinions. The best methods for success. Really? Or are you, like many others, just regurgitating the same bullshit that everyone gobbles up that CNN, MSNBC, FOX and all these other trash news corporations feed us.

It's all such a fucking sham and it's extraordinarily disheartening. A well oiled machine meant to distract and keep the internal hate flowing. I'm not calling anyone out at all, but it's sad to see so many extremely talented writers and talented storytellers who are so smart buy so much of the bullshit on TV. I mean if you watch these news stations and don't take anything they present to you with a THICK grain of salt then you're just not paying enough attention. That or maybe you're just THAT happy to take the red or the blue pill and ask no questions. The other side isn't your enemy, though. They're your fellow citizen, and they're allowed to disagree with you without you bull rushing them with your hatred and vitriol. This, I would say, extends to the Stephen Colbert, Kimmel and Fallon types too. It couldn't be more obvious that they're just mouthpieces for the politicians. Parrots who say the EXACT same things... that their peers say, and so on and on the wheel of distraction turns. Obviously Republicans don't have the same level of game that the Democrats do because Hollywood is so Liberal, but they have their mouthpieces too, don't forget that for a second. It's systemic manipulation of the masses from what I can tell, and it's getting no better. My all important question is, what the hell do we do about it?

It's obvious that this is an issue, if you're being honest with yourself at least, but what can we realistically do about it? I'd say that the two party system needs to be dissolved, because frankly speaking it's a problem and it doesn't allow for any real growth. It's just a power struggle between the last two Titans of their kind. Whenever I say things like that, though, it just falls flat because everyone is just so obsessed with the political rule of two. Green Party, Libertarian party, Socialist parties are all extremely unpopular for varying reasons. It's become clear that Americans don't want those. Also, from what I can tell, the Democrats are potentially on the verge of splitting and I could even see the Romney Republicans separating from the GOP too. And in a weird way since I'm off both of those boats I kinda want it to happen. I just don't want the chaos that might possibly ensue as a result, because there would certainly be some drama to follow.




I suppose this is my offering to see what the rest of you think. You can feel free to debate, I suppose, but this is more intended to be constructive as I ask the questions, "What could we do to make things better politically?" and "What changes with our political system would give us back our faith in our government?" Because there should be no argument that now, more than ever, Americans are disheartened and not many have faith in the Biden, the Trump, the Obama and the Bush types.

Also, as a disclaimer, if anyone feels upset by any of my comments regarding these "pristine and distinguished politicians" that we have representing us in the United States please try to understand that I'm highly critical of mostly just them and their celebrity pawns, but no one else really. This is largely because I think that they bear a large portion of the blame with all this bullshit going on in the world right now and in the past few decades and yet they absolutely NEVER own that and take the blame at all. Unless, of course, they get caught diddling a secretary or something, and then they'll fuck off. Other than that, though, they appear to only backpedal and distract. Because that's what they're good at. That's what being a politician is in this country now... at least as it occurs to me.


For context regarding where this came from I'll quote Oniya from another thread that got me feeling thoughtful and asking myself a few important questions:

"This is a problem called learned helplessness.

Once people start presuming that a situation can't be changed, they stop trying to change it - which, of course, results in the situation not changing.  Several people here have pointed out achievable goals that would start the process - not finish it, mind you, but make a dent in it - of changing the environment of fear and violence that exists.  More mental health interventions.  More social safety nets.  Things that don't even touch the NRA's purview.

Continually claiming that 'nothing can be done' is not helping solve the problem.  It is exacerbating it."

This is a fair comment which I appreciated, and yes it's from a different topic of debate/discussion, but I think this applies here too. I also think this small snip of Glyphstone's in the same thread can also apply:

"When you interpret everything as a binary choice between two extremes and ignore all the options in between, and use that as an excuse to do nothing, that's also making the situation worse through deliberate inaction."



The problem is...

1. Politics in America is a binary choice. That is a fact that just can't realistically be disputed.
2. Regardless of whether or not you try pointing to those other "parties", there is no realistic alternatives. Just the two, powerhouse clans that time and again destroy anything smaller than themselves that might hope to grasp relevancy eventually, and only because of the potential threat that they MIGHT prove to be later on down the road.
3.It's not that we use our two party system as an excuse to do nothing. It's that our two party system has us handcuffed to the GOP and the DNC, and if you don't vote for the shitshow of people that THEY CHOOSE for us to support during elections then you effectively don't have a voice and your vote means pretty much nothing at all regardless of what we tell ourselves.
4. I hate to come off as such a "Debbie Downer" type at all, because I'm actually a pretty happy and positive mined fellow, but this stuff really bugs me and it occurs to me that it never changes and we, as citizens in America, don't REALLY have any control during election time. We just end up getting the typical "Okay, which jackass do you want to be president? This jackass that you don't like or trust? Or that other jackass that you also don't like or trust?"

I mean seriously, who actually found it easy to vote in the 2016 election? That felt like voting between an assassin and an ogre. And I happily said, "Uhhh... yeah. Fuck that."


So anyway... what do?



If you end up not replying and just reading then I hope you enjoy the conversations that this might encourage, and to the entire community I hope you have a kickass weekend. Now go write me some exciting stories to enjoy, you beautiful people! : ]



- N

[Oniya]

One thing to remember is that change starts locally.  While you might not have any confidence in our federal lawmakers, it's still a good idea to keep track of things at the state and county level and at least vote at that level.  School boards make decisions on school policy, for example, and local politicians are much more accessible than the higher tier.  (Heck, our school superintendent probably still remembers us by name.)  Sometimes there are even issues on the ballot that have to do with the community rather than 'who holds office'.

Interact with groups in your area that support things that you value.  If nothing else, this forms connections and helps to diminish the feeling that you (or they!) are just shouting into the void.  Realizing that there are more people out there that share your opinion of problems makes it easier to act - even as individuals. 

[Notorious]

That's good advice, and I didnt make it known beforehand, but I actually do vote on locally relevant stuff up to the State level, even though I still wouldn't afford much trust to those individuals either. In recent years I've stepped back from presidential elections and pretty much anything that isn't my state or beneath that. Also I've shut off anything and everything media and cable news. My sources for what is going on in the world comes from stuff like streamers like Destiny and Vaush and some of your Tim Pool types. Yes I know there would be some controversial opinions with that, but at least they make me laugh and it's not constant doom and gloom with them like the news. And from what I can tell Destiny and Tim are closer to the middle while Vaush is a pretty heavy left Socialist. I like some of his takes, though, and he's constantly plugged into the news like Destiny.

Honestly they're just political commentators for the most part, but they're still FAR... and away better sources for wtf is going on in the world than CNN and FOX.

[Oniya]

I'd recommend looking to some different news sources - things like the BBC, which don't have the 'Murica, Fuck Yeah!' bias, or even Reuters and the Associated Press.  Also go for a variety of sources, to even out any individual failings, but there's no need to immerse yourself in heavy doom-scrolling. 

at least they make me laugh and it's not constant doom and gloom with them like the news. And from what I can tell Destiny and Tim are closer to the middle while Vaush is a pretty heavy left Socialist.

Tim Pool isn't as 'middle of the road' as he describes himself - he's been mentioned specifically in a couple of places around here, and not in a very good light.  (Heck, if you want a laugh and some E-side discussion, we have a thread on Last Week Tonight that Glyph keeps pretty current.)

[ReijiTabibito]

The things to understand - or at least, the things that gave me the biggest key to unlocking an understanding of what we see in American politics today - is the following. 

1: the Iron Law of Institutions.  This states that the higher you rise in an organization, the more of your time is spent preserving what power you have within that organization.  This applies just as much to the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 'I want to help people/serve the citizens of the country' as much as it does any old power-grubbing politician (which, TBF, I would say is nearly all of them).  We always hear about how much time - especially House Reps, with their mere 2-year cycle - Congressional figures have to spend on working on their re-election campaign.  This is why; once they're in, they don't want to leave.  So they spend more time running for re-election than actually conducting the business of Congress.

This is also why Congress spends so much of its time devolving its powers to administrative agencies, as they're afraid if they vote for something that's unpopular, they'll get booted from their cushy sinecure and have to start over.  If they don't have to vote on a thing - if they can just point to the EPA or IRS or whoever and say 'it's their call' - then nobody can hold them to account for their vote.

2: we - by which I mean the American people - made a bargain with Congress in...I'm probably wrong, but I'll say in the post-war period (IE, as the Boomers were being born).  We basically told Congress 'we just got done doing a lot, so we're gonna to back to our families and lives and leave you with the important business of running the country, just don't burn the place down while we're out, okay?'  And then we check back in every few years - the political equivalent of poking our heads in the door and asking if they need any snacks - to see how things are going.

...well.  Things are not going well, and if you asked me, went off the rails within about ten minutes of us closing the door to leave the kids to study.  (To carry on the analogy)

We made a mistake.  We believed that we could trust the people in our government structures to run things while we tended to our families and private lives, but it's clear to the citizenry by now that that trust has been massively abused.  So we have to step back in.  We have to pick up the slack and recognize that the government is no longer worthy of our trust solely based on the fact that we have elections.  Yes.  It means that that precious resource - our free time - is going to take a hit.  But that's the price we pay for living in a republic.

3: the people in charge of running our institutions will always be closer to each other than they will be to any of us.  McConnell and McCarthy are closer to Schumer and Pelosi than either set will ever be to their constituency.  I'm not about to go full-bore and say they laugh at us behind closed doors at DC cocktail parties, but I'll say in the same breath that learning this would not shock me terribly, either.  They'll go on TV and lie through their teeth to tell us that they'll go to DC and fight for us.  The best way I ever heard DC described is that fighting for/against something in DC is like being in the 4th quarter of a football game and deciding to get involved then.

The Founders wanted most of government to be on the local and state levels, which is why the 10th Amendment exists.  And I'm still reading & researching on it, but it seemed like state-level elections were far more important in the daily lives of Americans than federal ones...until you basically hit the 1960s and the matter of civil rights and segregation.  To which I will say that there was really no optimal solution for that, given that you were dealing with states that had literal discrimination laws on the books - given the legal structure of this country, the only ways you were getting them off the books was to either A: have the federal government override them (via the supremacy principle), or B: have the states repeal them themselves (which likely was not to be forthcoming for several years if not decades).  But this isn't the thread to discuss that.

To wit, the solution is to reverse the trend that has characterized the ascent of the federal government as the most important level of government over that of state-level government.  That won't be easy - DC will want to hold onto its power, and it will offer myriad reasons why we can't do Thing A or Thing B.  We are the United States of America.  With a plural.

4: read and watch and take in as many different sources and perspectives from as wide places as you can find.  Off the top of my head, the people I listen to are: Timcast, Megyn Kelly, Patrick Bet-David, Breaking Points, Michael Malice, Dave Smith, Glenn Greenwald.  The key is twofold here - one: listen to as many different voices as you can.  Two: stay away from the pages of the corporate media.  The NYT podcast is not going to do anything than repeat what the NYT has to print.  Do I keep up with them every single day?  No.  Though it helps that some of them only do a single episode a week, and that's just an hour or two of my time, so I can listen to the entire thing as I drove to and home from my job.

The more I listen to these people - and they are not all cut from the same cloth - the more I become convinced that most Americans agree on the core, important stuff.

Can we fix politics?  To quote a certain figure.

Yes.  We.  Can.

But temper that sentiment with the knowledge that no one will fix it for us.  We have to do this thing, because the people in charge now aren't to be trusted.  And it will not be swift, either.  William Wilberforce had to campaign for two decades in the British Empire to abolish the slave trade; I cannot imagine this to be any easier.

[Vekseid]

The fact of the matter is the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans,

Democrats aren't trying to repeal or sabotage the law under which I can legally operate Elliquiy.

Democrats weren't the ones who raised taxes on people making under $70k per year.

Democrats aren't trying to repeal or sabotage the law under which I can legally operate Elliquiy.

Democrats weren't the ones who voted down getting more inspectors to relieve the baby formula crisis. 28 million, a blank check? What the absolute fuck.

Democrats aren't trying to repeal or sabotage the law under which I can legally operate Elliquiy.

Democrats did not appoint Clarence Thomas.

Democrats aren't trying to repeal or sabotage the law under which I can legally operate Elliquiy.

Democrats did not appoint Samuel Alito. Seriously, Alito.

Democrats aren't trying to repeal or sabotage the law under which I can legally operate Elliquiy.

Democrats did not appoint Brett Kavanaugh.

Democrats aren't trying to repeal or sabotage the law under which I can legally operate Elliquiy.

If section 230 gets ruled 'unconstitutional', there will eventually come a point where America no longer can host communities such as this. And I cannot host Elliquiy outside of the United States.

1. Politics in America is a binary choice. That is a fact that just can't realistically be disputed.

It's a binary process... once the primaries are over.

Should it ever be binary? No. I'm for approval voting and a combination of local and proportionate representation, personally. Changing the senate will unfortunately require unanimous consent of the states, however. I doubt that will happen.

But parties do not choose their representatives from on high. You can get involved in these processes.

3. It's not that we use our two party system as an excuse to do nothing. It's that our two party system has us handcuffed to the GOP and the DNC, and if you don't vote for the shitshow of people that THEY CHOOSE

You choose. You literally get to choose them. That's what primaries are. That is how they work.

If you don't want to be involved in primaries, that is fine.

Do not claim these decisions are made for you, however. That is false.

You've created this imaginary bogeyman out of our political system, then declare nothing can be done to fix it.

Any problem can become impossible if you refuse to acknowledge reality.

So that should be your first step.

If this genuinely bothers you, start getting involved in the primary process for the next election cycle.

[GloomCookie]

Local elections are where it's at. I tried to vote in the primaries here but my workload is stupid high right now, so I missed my chance, but that's one way to make your voice heard. Primaries are the sort of pre-election that no one keeps track of, and is where decisions on who is running for which ticket gets decided. Since fewer people vote, it's a good way to have more say in who represents you as a candidate.

I am not a fan of the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system. I think it stifles the introduction of viable third party candidates because the party with more power can get split down the middle, leading for the less popular candidate to take the victory. CGP Grey did several videos years ago that I think would be better implemented, though I can almost guarantee we won't see any implemented within our lifetimes here in the United States. I will link all the videos below because I love me some CGP Grey and also he explains it pretty well.

Also I wish we could eliminate jerrymandering, which I'll throw that video in too. I'm a fan of the Shortest Split-Line Method, but I also know that jerrymandering will be an issue forever too :(

I will say however that I do prefer we keep the Electoral College but that's a topic I'll go into later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2DfpjIuXo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_95I_1rZiIs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

[Oniya]

That's the same 'Shortest Split Line' video that I first learned about from Little Oni - and the one that I frequently go back to.

[Tolvo]

I'd recommend looking to some different news sources - things like the BBC, which don't have the 'Murica, Fuck Yeah!' bias, or even Reuters and the Associated Press.  Also go for a variety of sources, to even out any individual failings, but there's no need to immerse yourself in heavy doom-scrolling. 

Tim Pool isn't as 'middle of the road' as he describes himself - he's been mentioned specifically in a couple of places around here, and not in a very good light.  (Heck, if you want a laugh and some E-side discussion, we have a thread on Last Week Tonight that Glyph keeps pretty current.)

It should be mentioned that Destiny is also far right, as well as Vaush(He is nearly a Neo Nazi just calls himself a leftist despite believing in almost no left wing ideals in addition to both of them being open bigots). They are well known for leading harassment campaigns against people they consider undesirables, especially queer, black, and trans people. Vaush is mainly all about a might makes right attitude, and that it's all about exerting power over others to prove one's own dominance. Both are also well known for their defense of and use of the n word. In some ways they are further to the right than Ben Shapiro.

[Oniya]

Thanks so much for that clarification.  I don't tend to follow a lot of YouTube commentators, but I'd recognized Tim Pool's name from previous conversations in this board - and that's why I offered a few alternatives.

[Tolvo]

It's that thing of the internet where to some these people are massive well known figures and to others they've literally never heard of them. In leftist charity streaming we actually have people watch out in Vaush's community to see if he is going to hate raid leftist charities while claiming he is helping as he gets them sent death threats and more from his extremely hateful fanbase(To be clear not all are, but that is a big part of his core). It's like having scouts to give you warnings before an invasion but it's some guy who constantly yells at people sending his viewers to target trans, black, and queer charities then saying he can't be transphobic because he spotlighted a trans charity stream which also promptly shut down due to his fans brigading it.

[BlueOrange]

In Australia, we have a variety of political parties that are represented in parliament. And a healthy number of independents, too. We have 4 major parties, and several others. The power in our politics is held by the center.

This is due to a combination of:
Ranked choice voting
Proportional representation
Every school is a voting place
Elections held on weekends, with convenient early & postal voting
Compulsory to show up to vote
Independent non-partisan agency responsible for electoral boundaries and for counting


I think the USA should seriously consider becoming a modern democracy.

[GloomCookie]

That's a lovely sentiment but even Australia isn't a democracy. It's a Republic. That may seem pedantic, but the US is technically a Federal Republic, with each state being represented at the federal level. This is actually deliberate, as part of the reason we even formed a constitution was to beef up power on the federal level, but the states wanted to maintain a level of autonomy, which is why we have the Bill of Rights and specifically Amendment 10 to try and protect the rights of states.

Before some asshole comments, yes states have rights. States are themselves political entities, we're just not used to equating the power of a state like Arkansas to that of France or German, but it's true. Does that give them the right to do something like hold slaves? Not if it's illegal on the federal level, but even then the state itself has representatives to argue their point. There were a ton of arguments over slavery because the states had that power. They were ultimately wrong and paid the price, but they still had their chance to argue.

Now yes, I know I argued in favor of voter reform, and that statement still holds true. But I'm also not going to pretend we're a democracy and that we should vote directly for the president, because that's not what our constitution was built to do. It was built to deliberately hamstring the federal government and avoid concentrating power into a single branch or office, which is why the Supreme Court is going to town tearing down things like the EPA. The issue isn't that the Supreme Court hates the EPA and environmental regulations, it's just that the EPA was put in place by a president without the support of Congress or any laws to back it up. Same with threats towards gay marriage, because there's no federal law to back up a prior ruling. This is our 'modern democracy' working as intended to get Congress off its ass to do the job they're specifically there to do. If Congress can't come together with enough votes to lock in gay marriage, then it must be controvertial enough that each state should be making its own decision.

Now yes, I know, that sounds horrible and no doubt a lot of states would instantly ban gay marriage just like they did abortions, but that means Congress must do its job and find a solution that works for most people. If they can't do that, then it makes total sense that what works for the state of New York may not work for California. Maybe it would be better if Congress went for a more moderate approach that works for the majority of Americans to secure support rather than going for an extreme position for or against. Texas recognizes energy codes just like New York and California, but they don't go to the same lengths as they do. So if you want to get support for something like the Clean Air Act, the only way you'll get Texas to sign on is to be moderate.

Sorry, Cookie-rant over, just... try to understand the US is not a democracy, it's a republic with officials who are elected via democratic voting, and we have several safeguards deliberately to avoid federal power becoming too powerful.

I'm gonna go nap now.

[Vekseid]

That's a lovely sentiment but even Australia isn't a democracy.

This is false. Democracy has more meanings than just 'direct democracy'.

A republic simply means that the 'public' owns and is responsible for the country. With varying definitions of who is the 'public', of course.

Whether or not a state is a republic has little to do with whether they are democracies. The United Kingdom is a democracy which is not a republic. The People's Republic of China is a republic which is not a democracy.

The United States is a federal republic, yes. It is also a representative democracy.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

Now yes, I know I argued in favor of voter reform, and that statement still holds true. But I'm also not going to pretend we're a democracy and that we should vote directly for the president, because that's not what our constitution was built to do. It was built to deliberately hamstring the federal government and avoid concentrating power into a single branch or office, which is why the Supreme Court is going to town tearing down things like the EPA. The issue isn't that the Supreme Court hates the EPA and environmental regulations, it's just that the EPA was put in place by a president without the support of Congress or any laws to back it up.

...the entire decision was over an interpretation of the Clean Air Act.

As in, a literal act of Congress.

Reading section 111 definitely sounds like they have the authority to set emissions caps to me. The primary argument here seems to be giving the EPA the authority to shift entire industries is beyond its scope.

I can see the logic in sending this to congress, "Are you sure?" style. Roberts is a lot smarter than Alito and Thomas, so I would definitely expect something more coherent from him.

That said, it is pretty clear to me Congress did give the EPA rather broad authority here, and Roberts' attack on this is suspect by my reading.

Same with threats towards gay marriage, because there's no federal law to back up a prior ruling. This is our 'modern democracy' working as intended to get Congress off its ass to do the job they're specifically there to do. If Congress can't come together with enough votes to lock in gay marriage, then it must be controvertial enough that each state should be making its own decision.

Gay marriage currently enjoys something like 70% of support.

However, 20% of the population elects half the country's senators. Republicans haven't represented a majority of the country since Clinton.

Now yes, I know, that sounds horrible and no doubt a lot of states would instantly ban gay marriage just like they did abortions, but that means Congress must do its job and find a solution that works for most people.

Tell me. What is the appropriate moderate take with this guy? Perhaps equating lgbt+ people with pedophiles?

At some point 'moderate' is not a respectable stance.
Trans murders have risen every year for the past several years.

What is the appropriate number of trans murders?

Zero. Zero is the appropriate number.

Full stop.

[BlueOrange]

If we’re going to be precise, Australia is a federation of constitutional monarchies that are governed (at the state and federal levels) via parliamentary democracy. Unlike the USA, the head of the executive (the prime minister) is a member of the legislature. Meanwhile the head of state (Queen Elizabeth II) is restricted to ceremonial duties only. We are not a republic.

When the Australian constitution was drafted (over a period of two years, ending in 1900), we had the luxury of being able to study the constitutions of the USA and Canada. Thank you very much USA for going first, and letting us learn from your mistakes. Feel free to consider the possibility that lessons about democracy have been learned in the last couple of hundred years.

The last time we upgraded our voting systems was 4 years ago. We now have a functioning 5-party system, and everyone from the hard left (Green Party) to the center left (Labor Party) to the center right (Liberal Party) to the farming right (National Party) and the flat-out racists (One Nation) has someone representing them in parliament. The center parties have the most power, but they need to make deals with the other parties to get legislation through. And so everyone is actually represented.

Combine that with the fact that vote splitting is not a concern (you can vote for the person you actually want without worrying that the person you hate will get in) and we have a massive number of independents as well.

And then there’s the fact that the Australian Electoral Commission is trustworthy, and that Australia’s Supreme Court very rarely makes laws. That’s what the parliament is for.

I agree that Congress should be making laws rather than the courts. But the US Congress doesn’t represent the people. That’s the fundamental problem. In the absence of a representative Congress, there was this brief period where LGBTQI+ people managed to be treated as equal under the law. The end of that era is (to put it mildly) a sad day for everyone.

[Phelan8801]

The fact of the matter is the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans

Speaking as an outsider to American politics. I will say the binary choice which gets forced on Americans every 4 years is nothing short of ridiculous. There are very radical extremists on both ends whose ideas trend on twitter enough that not treating them as gospel is considered controversial, and politicians, being allergic to controversy acquiese to these extremes.

"Abolish the police" is a good catch phrase, it rings true for any adult with a healthy distrust of authority, but if you take it on face value and really THINK about it, it's a TERRIBLE idea. It's an example of the left going insane.

But... there's a difference between that and republicans. Republicans literally just took away women's right to MEDICAL AUTONOMY OVER THEIR OWN BODIES. And... OH YEAH, ATTEMPTED A COUP.

They are literally subverting trust in democracy by alleging ELECTORAL FRAUD with NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE, and attempting to IMPOSE A BARELY FUNCTIONAL IMMATURE RACIST MORON as a dictator, simply for political expedience and to institute their idiotic religious moralism as law.

I can understand disagreeing with democrats on some fundamental issues, I do, most people do, but we cannot look at the ACTUAL SUBVERSION OF DEMOCRACY as an acceptable response to anything the democrats are doing.

[greenknight]

When the Australian constitution was drafted (over a period of two years, ending in 1900), we had the luxury of being able to study the constitutions of the USA and Canada. Thank you very much USA for going first, and letting us learn from your mistakes. Feel free to consider the possibility that lessons about democracy have been learned in the last couple of hundred years.

Yep. The US Constitution has never been changed in 230-some years....

Speaking as an outsider to American politics. I will say the binary choice which gets forced on Americans every 4 years is nothing short of ridiculous. There are very radical extremists on both ends whose ideas trend on twitter enough that not treating them as gospel is considered controversial, and politicians, being allergic to controversy acquiesce to these extremes.

It's not ridiculous, it's a deliberate repudiation of the parliamentary coalition building already extant. The extremists are a problem.

"Abolish the police" is a good catch phrase, it rings true for any adult with a healthy distrust of authority, but if you take it on face value and really THINK about it, it's a TERRIBLE idea. It's an example of the left going insane.

There was never any discussion of abolishing the police. But that's how the opposition, the extremists, again, rebranded the very real discussions on police reform. That "Defund the Police" was a terrible appellation for the movement didn't help; even some supporters mistakenly thought abolition was the goal and enthusiastically agreed.

[RedRose]

American politics is strange to me. I've never understood a lot of it. In fact I miss the days people (here) kept their discussions out of Facebook and name calling. I wonder if what they saw online motivated them to start being all out in your face aggressive too. I lost American friends for saying I wasn't very political AND for saying they had no good choice.

[GloomCookie]

Yep. The US Constitution has never been changed in 230-some years....

The 27th Amendment was passed in 1992 and made it so Congress couldn't pass a pay increase and have it enacted within the same session. This was because Congress gave themselves a pay bump even as the economy was tanking at the time.

[Iniquitous]

The 27th Amendment was passed in 1992 and made it so Congress couldn't pass a pay increase and have it enacted within the same session. This was because Congress gave themselves a pay bump even as the economy was tanking at the time.

Thomas Jefferson told James Madison in a letter that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years because it is wrong to have the living subject to laws and constitution written by the dead.

He had a point.

[GloomCookie]

Thomas Jefferson was a notorious anti-Federalist back when that was a political movement, which is absolutely hilarious given he made the Louisiana Purchase. In no way are there provisions for purchasing land in the Constitution, but he went ahead and did it despite being anti-Federal government.

I'm not saying there's no merit to his sentiment, but you need stability if you want a government to hold any legitimacy. You want to strike that balance of stable and flexible, and considering there was no guideline when they wrote the Constitution, I'd say they did a pretty decent job.

[Keelan]

Thomas Jefferson told James Madison in a letter that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years because it is wrong to have the living subject to laws and constitution written by the dead.

He had a point.

You mean this one? https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison

Ooh, here's the response from Madison btw! https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-13-02-0020

That'll be relevant, but as the letters are long, here's something a little simpler: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160574

And to quote the most relevant part:

What was this huge idea? The earth belongs to the living. Jefferson declared the principle was self-evident: no man has the power or right over his money or propertyafter his death. It ceases to be his when he himself ceases to be and reverts to society. Debts contracted by the dead person should also be cancelled.

Jefferson had studied mortality statistics and concluded that every nineteen years, a new generation took charge of the affairs of a nation. Why should they be obliged to repay the debts of the previous generation? They were also under no obligation to obey the laws that the previous generation may have passed in a legislature or enshrined in a constitution. “Every constitution … and every law naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, not of right,” Jefferson wrote. For him, the only true test of a government was its support by the will of the majority of the current generation.

Candor soon prevailed. Madison began by calling Jefferson’s idea “a great one.” But he “regretfully” found it “not very compatible with the course of human affairs.” Madison broke the theory into four parts. 1. The living generation can only bind itself. 2: A generation spans nineteen years. 3: A generation’s actions are limited to that term, and to be valid, have to be expressly enacted by its congress or parliament. 4: In every society, the will of the majority binds the minority.

Madison calmly demolished each of these propositions. He was especially hard on the idea that each generation should revise all its laws and customs every nineteen years. Such a government would lose “those prejudices in its favor which antiquity [age] inspires.” Worse, every revision would arouse “pernicious factions” that would divide and perhaps destroy the nation’s unity.

Even weaker was the contention that each generation had no obligation to honor the debts of the previous generation. “Debts may be incurred principally for the benefit of posterity,” Madison noted. A good example was the large debt [a billion dollars in 21st century money] that the United States had incurred to win the Revolutionary War. The debt helped bestow freedom on the next generation and hopefully on all those that would follow it.

Instead of splitting the generations apart, Madison found that “the nature of things” tends to bind them together. In this process the principle of “tacit assent” was indispensable. Literal reenactment of all the laws was a dangerous policy. If explicit assent had to be obtained for every idea and principle every nineteen years, there was a grave danger of “subverting the foundation of civil society.” As for the majority binding the majority in all cases, Madison could find no law of nature that supported such an idea.

So, in short: Jefferson believed that society should essentially remake itself every 19 years, but his theoretical example basically assumed entire generations being born and dying at around the same time.

Madison points out that not only does human society not truly operate from a generational perspective which throws the whole thing off, but to completely remake society every 20 years would make things incredibly unstable in the form of special interests, power struggles, and even losing out to youthful exuberance instead of wisdom wrought from age even in his own theorizing (not to mention trying to do anything that takes more than 20 years to accomplish). He also pointed out that in the case of national debt - a significant focus of Jefferson's letter in totality - while they may not have accrued the debt directly, the benefits wrought from the debt accrued ultimately may benefit future generations because the actions of one generation are not inherently self-contained unto itself, nor does the past have no impact on the future.

In other words: Jefferson's idea to completely reset the entirety of society every 19 years was a terrible one that would only work in theory but never in practice, a sentiment shared by myself and Madison.

[Phelan8801]

It's not ridiculous, it's a deliberate repudiation of the parliamentary coalition building already extant. The extremists are a problem.

But extremists are ALWAYS gonna be a problem, any political system should enforce a large plurality instead of a binary choice. Alejandra Ocasio Cortez sounds nothing short of insane to me at times, and yet because she knows how to handle social media, the rational left cannot repudiate her occasional stupid nonsense as the stupid nonsense that it actually is.

If the parties were allowed to split, the speaker of the House wouldn't have to acquiese to her as much as she does.

There was never any discussion of abolishing the police. But that's how the opposition, the extremists, again, rebranded the very real discussions on police reform. That "Defund the Police" was a terrible appellation for the movement didn't help; even some supporters mistakenly thought abolition was the goal and enthusiastically agreed.

Really? Because honest to goodness, I saw plenty of people arguing for that in major left leaning outlets like say... The Daily Show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUtpuU4mzOM

Or TYT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUtpuU4mzOM

Hasan Piker, one of the biggest leftist streamers and talking heads out there also called for it at some point. And no one on the moderate left actually called that bullshit for what it actually is. BULLSHIT.

Defund the police is by contrast, not an entirely bad idea, it's just a terrible tagline. The police MUST operate, as long as crime exists, and it CANNOT operate on 0 dollars, but does it need military hardware to operate? Does it need weapons of war, and sniper rifles, and helicopters and dogs for every emergency? Well no. But, I definitely feel SOME POLICEMEN oughta have a sniper rifle... Just not EVERY SINGLE ONE. I feel like SWAT should exist, just... not for every single emergency.

There is a middle ground to be found here, but when you say DEFUND THE POLICE, people usually just wonder if the defunded police will be able to get there in time in case of an emergency. Demilitarize the police, rethink policing, those sound better, and even then they'd still be tough sells, because that change will make police operate less effectively for a while as they adjust, and in the meantime, who's to say YOUR family won't be the one with the gun. But ALAS I'm going too far off topic.

The main point is that a rational conversation about police reform can be had, but not without condemning the insanity on your side. The next time Trevor Noah has one of these crazies on his show, maybe it is worth taking him to task for it.

[Vekseid]

The police MUST operate, as long as crime exists,

So many police departments have fostered such a horrible reputation, across such a broad array of society, I believe at least a few are going to get chopped up entirely and separated into investigation/response/protection/enforcement branches with differing names.

[GloomCookie]

So many police departments have fostered such a horrible reputation, across such a broad array of society, I believe at least a few are going to get chopped up entirely and separated into investigation/response/protection/enforcement branches with differing names.

Honestly, I would not oppose having the various departments split up. Considering the rivalries between police and fire in most jurisdictions, I would love to see police departments having to compete with each other in terms of both budget and jurisdiction.

However, we won't have that because for one, we already have a shit ton of that already. Just as an example, you could have city police, the sheriffs office, the state police, and that's before you hit federal level, and usually city police get into a real pissing match with the sheriff's office over who has jurisdiction. Most are professional about it, but holy hell can they be petty towards each other.

Also, a lot of the reason police departments get military gear is two fold. First, the military has to offload obsolete equipment, which ok fine makes total sense, and a lot of police jurisdictions love military gear because even obsolete gear is better than almost anything civilian and they can get it for almost nothing. But, that leads into a problem when you get ex-military who leave the service and think they're trading one uniform for another, and don't realize that you can't approach civilians in the United States the way you would a civilian in Iraq or Afghanistan. That mindset has them trigger happy and seeing civilian interactions as potential threats, not members of their community.


For our visually impared friends:
Sharp angled tinted rimless glasses: 90% getting a ticket or arrested
Sharp angled tinted glasses with rim: 2000% arrested every time. Will check tire tread and window tint to give you a ticket.
Round sunglasses: Probably gonna ask you to slow down and give you a warning.
Rounded blue sunglasses: Wore his fishing glasses to work. Probably going after work. Trying to chill for the shift.