I'm reflecting how it is likely to go in Europe, for far-right populism shift.
France. Don't think it is going to be Le Pen, if it is Juppé against her, because he is viewed as a poper statesmanlike politican of some merit. Ex-president Sarkozy, Copé - it could go for Le Pen - a diluted, unauthentic version of her from the "mainstream" is not safe. (Nor desirable, IMO, anyway)
Hollad. The racist party will gain significant vote share, but probably will not accept governmental responsibility, because they know it would decimate their popularity. Such party could not deliver their "five minute solution to hard problems" promises, so it is essential for them to keep on barking at the passing caravan from the opposition.
Italy. We'll see. Parliamentary democracy in Italy has always been very volatile.
I am sorry to say: Poland and Hungary have been such malconent EU members of late, that I wish the next election will take them all the way. The relationship could be more constructive on 3rd party bases for each party.
Would be sorry to see those ideally close to EU - say Turkey, Moldova turn away, but maybe it must be so for the moment.
Tonight, in his first interview: Trump, on pledge to appoint special prosecutor to investigate Clintons, says "I don't want to hurt them. They're good people".
He's a pathological liar. What's more troubling. His supporters won't care an OUNCE. They will care about what he tells them to care about. The banana republic "lock her up" chants will be flushed down the memory-hole as if they never happened. This is how propaganda works. Has NO ONE read "1984"??
You say "pathological liar" like it is a bad thing... At this point, I think they accept that is one of his features and not a bug.
Quick, someone set up a Redmine project for the United States. I've got a lot of bugs to report (and a fair few Feature requests ).
Besides the vanishingly low chance of a GOP House impeaching Trump, he would actually have to commit a crime. You can't impeach him because he lays around watching reality TV while Pence runs the government.
The first spooled up: accusation of fraud, brought to court by number of since closed "Trump University" students. The claim is these persons were tricked to pay 35k USD for a worthless degree that was marketed as a valid degree for property development.
Possibly coming up: sexual harassment. "When you are a star, you can do anything." I hope not.
Impeachment is almost always limited to crimes committed while in office.
We are supposedly a democracy of some sort. Enough people standing up and saying "no, this is wrong, we disagree with this" would should hold some weight.
The creeping authoritarianism that has taken place just over the last two days is frightening. Laugh at me all you want. This man is a danger to not only this country, but the entire world. Listen to what he's saying. Pay special attention to who he is surrounding himself with. This is not a joke.
I did my bit and so did most Californians. California has the most people in the USA. A few other places clearly saw through this guy too.
But most did of middle america did not, somehow? The rust belt thought somehow a New York billionaire was a blue collar guy who could help them get back their manufacturing industry that has been replaced by technology.
Besides the vanishingly low chance of a GOP House impeaching Trump, he would actually have to commit a crime. You can't impeach him because he lays around watching reality TV while Pence runs the government.
The first spooled up: accusation of fraud, brought to court by number of since closed "Trump University" students. The claim is these persons were tricked to pay 35k USD for a worthless degree that was marketed as a valid degree for property development.
Possibly coming up: sexual harassment. "When you are a star, you can do anything." I hope not.
Impeachment is almost always limited to crimes committed while in office.
But thankfully: immunity to normal criminal prosecution of actual, past or future presidents, is also.
Meaning: if Trump committed crimes before assuming office of the President of the US, he is liable for criminal prosecution, albeit by all practical circumstances shielded by his status more than any average US citizen defrauding or harassing away.
Should Trump be criminally convicted, it is of course up to the US to accept him as a convicted offender, and the president.
Then only, should he commit crimes in the office, he'd be investigated under the presidential procedure.
A lot of things didn't go the way they were supposed to in our history. The will of the people can and have effected great change, regardless of what the system says.
After the 60 Minutes interview, I have to say I would laugh if it turns out that Trump is more liberal than he led the Republican's to believe on a number of issues.
After the 60 Minutes interview, I have to say I would laugh if it turns out that Trump is more liberal than he led the Republican's to believe on a number of issues.
People are going to be finding all of this alot less funny as time goes on.
After the 60 Minutes interview, I have to say I would laugh if it turns out that Trump is more liberal than he led the Republican's to believe on a number of issues.
People are going to be finding all of this alot less funny as time goes on.
yep the people that actually wanted him to repeal obamacare, round up illegal immigrants, build a wall, remove the electoral college, drain the swamp, etc are going to be disappointed he's unlikely to do any of that and his whole staff are insiders mostly a rogue's gallery of GW Bush's cronies and far right politicians.
And the other side are people that don't support him due to his racist, xenophobic statements and the alt-right policies such as climate change denial, rights suppression of LGBTQ, wall street de-regulation, and his assaults on women and minorities. We will get attacks on women's reproductive rights and might get creationism in schools if they aren't entirely replaced by a voucher system to privatize education.
he's not but he's talking about putting Dr. Carson in there as Secretary of Education. Presumably he's putting these crazy people in key positions to let them do their job. And the whole government without checks and balances has been handed to the far right.
The point is, Trump is too lazy to actually be more than a figurehead President. So he is going to staff out the entire operation. He's already named the head of the RNC his Chief of Staff today. But that is nothing compared to him naming Steve Bannon, the Editor of Bretibart and an admitted anti-semite, to be his chief strategist. In one ear, you have the embodiment of the Republican establishment. In the other, one of the leading voices of white nationalism in the country.
On top of all this, we've had Brexit. Marie Le Pen in France may be the next domino to fall. Towering over everything is Putin, as every major Western power except for Germany (go figure) bends towards authoritarian leaders and white nationalism. What we're seeing is demagogues explaining away any economic hardship by scapegoating minority groups and immigrants, and uneducated people lapping it up, just like every other time in history. NATO hangs in the balance. Extrapolate out from there. Dangerous doesn't even begin to describe what's going on. I fear a major and terrible tipping point is being reached.
This country has alot of flaws. I remember how bad the Bush years were. I vigorously opposed McCain and Romney. But I never feared them. If they'd beaten Obama either time, I wouldn't have felt physically ill as election night went on. I think they would have been a disaster on many levels, but we would have been ok. I didn't view them as a threat to our entire system of government. Thinking about Donald Trump, reading the reporting on what he is planning to do, who he is appointing, fills me with a sense of dread I've never felt before in regards to our political system, and I follow and care about politics about as much as one can. This does not feel right.
An alternative to the electoral college would have to be done correctly. Abolishing it entirely in favor of the popular vote is a mistake. It would just change the way campaigning is done now from touring in the swing states to touring in the big cities. It would be manipulated exactly the same way our political system is manipulated now. Just as we are complaining that the wrong voices were heard this election, we would be complaining that the wrong voices would be heard in every other election. Having all states split their electoral college votes would inevitably end up favoring the Republican Party, because states like California, Washington, Oregon, and all of New England, which offer large amounts of electoral votes consistently Blue, would finally have some of their votes go Red. Southern states are very unlikely to go blue for all but a few of their votes.
I personally don't have any ideas for a good replacement. Anyone got any?
Tonight, in his first interview: Trump, on pledge to appoint special prosecutor to investigate Clintons, says "I don't want to hurt them. They're good people".
He's a pathological liar. What's more troubling. His supporters won't care an OUNCE. They will care about what he tells them to care about. The banana republic "lock her up" chants will be flushed down the memory-hole as if they never happened. This is how propaganda works. Has NO ONE read "1984"??
I read this book within the last year. I absolutely loved it.
I will tell you, though, that I disagree it is indicative of either of the spokespeople for either the democratic and republican parties, or even as indicative of the either party or how our government works at all.
What struck me the most was the portrayal of a media's ongoing effort to control thought. Some may argue that our media today does that. If that is true, I certainly don't believe it is done in an effort to crush us into nothingness by starving us and forcing us into misery, and certainly not in an extreme level as is portrayed in the book. Our media does try to sway thoughts and opinions in an attempt to make more money, and probably not with perfect self-awareness, as is the primary ingredient to the moral of the book.
I found the corruption of what the words in our language actually can mean incredibly insightful. The ministry of love is actually a torture chamber. The ministry of truth is actually a place intentionally dedicated to producing lies. And so on.
But just because someone lies or doesn't follow through, or even if they are rude, crude, or hateful, doesn't make them Orwellian. It is the open acknowledgement that attempting to control thought, and in so doing controlling the language one possesses to form those thoughts, in order to produce emotions and loyalty to a cause as the only way to stay in power, that makes one Orwellian.
Stalin and the Nazis were good examples of Orwellian thought control. The book was based on their forms of government, after all.
The internet, as it exists now, is the perfect antithesis to that form of thought control strategy, because it is freedom from money or resources to publish opinions and ideas, regardless of the unpopularity of those ideas and opinions. All arguments that we live in an Orwellian society fall flat simply on the virtue that the arguments actually exist, here, on the internet.
"Planning for a Trump Administration When You're Not A Straight Rich White Dude" with sections for things to do now, legal solutions, self defense, etc
I personally don't have any ideas for a good replacement. Anyone got any?
Ditch the whole thing and go popular vote. The Senate in particular is where smaller states retain their influence.
I am afraid I very strongly disagree with that, as I indicated in my post. It just isn't a solution to the problem we have now, or the problem that was trying to be avoided when the electoral college was founded.
It also is very unlikely to happen, seeing as the electoral college was designed to prevent the popular vote. We need a compromise of some sort.
This thread has grown quite quickly and has got 15 pages since November, 8. It's very important that such things as politics can be discussed on this forum. During these 15 pages it's understandable that people had heated arguments here and there. And still, sane discussion has always gained the upper hand. It's actually a big relief to come back here after the weekend and find an interesting, measured talk in the sphere that is so important to many people. I'm impressed!
This isn't a true democracy. It's a constitutional republic. That is the crux of the problem, especially now.
The "problem"?? Being a constitutional republic is what makes the US a stable democratic nation and guarantees the liberty of its citizens.
A "true democracy" would be a dictatorship of the majority (and would quickly turn into a conventional dictatorship once the majority finds a leader to exploit this system).
For someone who loves to hype himself into believing Trump is some sort of scary dictator (lol), you sure seem quick to discard what protects you from actual dictatorships in the future.
You're not a lone in that, of course, Over the last 20 years or so, the Democratic Party's commitment to the constitution has deteriorated steadily. Because getting a majority in Congress and Senate was too much work, they've increasingly tried to bypass the constitution and implement laws without the approval of Congress, be it by filling the Supreme Court with left-wing judges who think their job is to invent new laws based on their personal philosophy/morality rather than to enforce the constitution as it is written, or by so-called "Executive Orders" (more apt. "illegal power grabs") by the president.
If Trump appoints a conservative (a.k.a. constitution-respecting) judge to SCOTUS and cancels Obama's unconstitutional executive orders, that will be a step away from dictatorship, not towards it.
If he keeps those two promises, then electing him instead of Clinton into office will already have been worth it. He can then break all his other promises and drink cocktails in his penthouse for 4 years, for all I care.
...Over the last 20 years or so, the Democratic Party's commitment to the constitution has deteriorated steadily. Because getting a majority in Congress and Senate was too much work, they've increasingly tried to bypass the constitution and implement laws without the approval of Congress, be it by filling the Supreme Court with left-wing judges who think their job is to invent new laws based on their personal philosophy/morality rather than to enforce the constitution as it is written, or by so-called "Executive Orders" (more apt. "illegal power grabs") by the president.
If Trump appoints a conservative (a.k.a. constitution-respecting) judge to SCOTUS and cancels Obama's unconstitutional executive orders, that will be a step away from dictatorship, not towards it.
The Supreme Court has had a slant towards the right for years. In recent years, the Court has issued closely divided 5-4 rulings that have had enormous effects on our daily lives in a number of areas, including equal marriage rights for LGBT couples, the validity of the Affordable Care Act, reproductive rights, workers’ rights, money in politics, civil rights, and many more. Please see this list to describe some of the 5-4 votes of the "constituion" or whatever that Conservatives have passed that promoted the interests of powerful corporations, and damaged our democracy.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the 5-4 majority overturned federal election law and prior decisions and ruled that corporations have a constitutional right to make unlimited campaign expenditures, seriously distorting election campaigns and our democracy(!) In Gonzales v. Carhart, the 5-4 Court majority effectively overruled a decision and upheld a federal ban on certain late-term abortions The 5-4 majority in Michigan v. EPA overturned EPA regulations safeguarding communities from toxic pollution by power plants that causes up to 11,000 premature deaths each year The 5-4 majority in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decided that for-profit corporations can claim religious rights and can exempt themselves from federal laws requiring them to provide contraceptive coverage to employees. The majority also rewrote the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, with potentially dangerous consequences for LGBT and other Americans In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the 5-4 majority ruled that corporations can effectively mandate arbitration agreements that preclude consumers from bringing class actions to combat fraud and enforce their rights The 5-4 majority in Shelby County v. Holder overturned a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, making it much harder to protect against discrimination in voting In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., the 5-4 Court majority made it virtually impossible to bring a claim of long-running sex or race discrimination in pay under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a decision later reversed by a congressional statute The 5-4 majority in Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc. overruled a 96-year-old rule that had made vertical price fixing per se illegal under federal antitrust law In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, the 5-4 Court majority prohibited school districts from attempting voluntarily to promote school desegregation through student reassignment plans In District of Columbia v. Heller, the 5-4 majority struck down a law regulating the ownership and use of guns and ruled for the first time that individuals have a constitutional right to have guns In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, the 5-4 Court majority ruled that local officials can strip-search anyone accused of any crime, even if there is no reason to suspect contraband or concealed weapons, and cannot be sued for invasion of privacy
The only way Obama could do anything was by executive order because the GOP decided as soon as he was elected the first time to obstruct him. Quote
"Republicans have long been resolved to defeat proposals I’ve put forward or supported on everything from equal pay, immigration reform and increasing the minimum wage, to expanding commonsense background checks for those who want to purchase a gun, and basic protections for American workers against discrimination based on who they love or how they identify.
Republican leaders in Congress have proven they won’t work with my Administration, but along the way, they’ve lost sight of their basic mission. They can’t even meet their own goals. Republicans say they care about good paying jobs, but they’re ignoring one of the best ways to create them by refusing to make long overdue investments rebuilding our roads, bridges, ports and airports. A major infrastructure push would put Americans back to work and make our businesses more competitive – but Congress can’t get it done. They can’t move the ball forward on tax reform, one of the GOP’s biggest priorities, and they continue to delay serious funding to combat an opioid epidemic that has devastated the lives of many of their constituents. They talk a great deal about poverty, but refuse to address it in a meaningful way.
On countless priorities – issues that matter to people across the country, regardless of their politics – Republicans in Washington have traded progress for partisanship."
So if you applaud the GOP for sticking to their guns and refusing to do anything for the country even pass their own legislation because it might in some small way make obama look good then I guess you win there.
Despite the spin of the right wing media, Executive orders are not inherently bad, here's a USA today article on the very subject.
If he keeps those two promises, then electing him instead of Clinton into office will already have been worth it. He can then break all his other promises and drink cocktails in his penthouse for 4 years, for all I care.
The damage he's going to do will be far worse than any perceived anti-tyranny benefits. He is a climate change denier and his head of the EPA will be one as well he's going to burn the planet. His rhetoric has emboldened and given new life to racists and hate crimes are way up since he has been elected. He and an unchecked GOP government will cut taxes on corporations and restrict civil liberties for anyone who's not a straight rich white male.
Please see this list to describe some of the 5-4 votes of the "constituion" or whatever that Conservatives have passed that promoted the interests of powerful corporations, and damaged our democracy.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the 5-4 majority overturned federal election law and prior decisions and ruled that corporations have a constitutional right to make unlimited campaign expenditures, seriously distorting election campaigns and our democracy(!) In Gonzales v. Carhart, the 5-4 Court majority effectively overruled a decision and upheld a federal ban on certain late-term abortions The 5-4 majority in Michigan v. EPA overturned EPA regulations safeguarding communities from toxic pollution by power plants that causes up to 11,000 premature deaths each year The 5-4 majority in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decided that for-profit corporations can claim religious rights and can exempt themselves from federal laws requiring them to provide contraceptive coverage to employees. The majority also rewrote the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, with potentially dangerous consequences for LGBT and other Americans In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the 5-4 majority ruled that corporations can effectively mandate arbitration agreements that preclude consumers from bringing class actions to combat fraud and enforce their rights The 5-4 majority in Shelby County v. Holder overturned a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, making it much harder to protect against discrimination in voting In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., the 5-4 Court majority made it virtually impossible to bring a claim of long-running sex or race discrimination in pay under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a decision later reversed by a congressional statute The 5-4 majority in Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc. overruled a 96-year-old rule that had made vertical price fixing per se illegal under federal antitrust law In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, the 5-4 Court majority prohibited school districts from attempting voluntarily to promote school desegregation through student reassignment plans In District of Columbia v. Heller, the 5-4 majority struck down a law regulating the ownership and use of guns and ruled for the first time that individuals have a constitutional right to have guns In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, the 5-4 Court majority ruled that local officials can strip-search anyone accused of any crime, even if there is no reason to suspect contraband or concealed weapons, and cannot be sued for invasion of privacy
Regardless of the political bent of this post, this is exactly what we need to see: references to actual policies and real-life events.
In other words, stuff that actually happened, rather than vague generalities.
When you cannot capture video of police activity without fear of being targeted for arrest by the police your civil liberties have already been restricted.
When police departments drive around and are randomly scanning everyone's license plates, looking for open warrants, your civil liberties have already been restricted.
When two radicalized young men detonate explosive devices at the Boston Marathon, resulting in police ordering everyone to go inside and submit to house-to-house searches, your civil liberties have already been restricted. (If you didn't set off the devices you are innocent--in this instance the police presumed that everyone was guilty until they were proven to be innocent, which is the opposite of how our justice system is supposed to work.)
When local government coordinates with corporate interests and buys out your property for a sports stadium or retail development, misusing eminent domain, your civil liberties have already been restricted.
Despite the spin of the right wing media, Executive orders are not inherently bad
Presented for your viewing pleasure, Executive Order 9066. This order allowed the military to classify any area as a "military zone" and they could forcibly remove anyone who might be a spy or saboteur from that area. The end result: over 70,000 United States citizens of Japanese ancestry, as well as 11,000 citizens of German ancestry and 3,000 citizens of Italian ancestry, were rounded up and put in camps. These camps had guard towers with snipers and were surrounded by barbed wire. See also Executive Order 9102, which went right along with it.
In Gonzales v. Carhart, the 5-4 Court majority effectively overruled a decision and upheld a federal ban on certain late-term abortions
Well, late-term abortions of fully developed babies are murder. (Unless it's done to save the mother's life, of course, then it's more like self-defense.)
And with some of the abortion methods the Dems are trying to legalize, it's particularly cruel murder.
The constitution doesn't prevent Congress from restricting people's access to murder, so SCOTUS was right to uphold that law.
The 5-4 majority in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decided that for-profit corporations can claim religious rights and can exempt themselves from federal laws requiring them to provide contraceptive coverage to employees.
Rightly so.
Companies consist of people, and in case of family enterprises the company effectively is the people that own it. The idea that citizens suddenly loose their civil rights the moment they make money off something, is neither morally sound nor supported by the constitution.
Also, the whole "reproductive rights" framing of this issue was completely bogus. It is not a right to have any particular goods that you want to consume in your private life, paid for and provided to you by your employer. There is no such right, neither constitutionally nor morally.
It's shameless how much the left has distorted the language of "rights" to express things they *want*.
You want something? Buy it. Leave third parties out of it.
In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the 5-4 majority ruled that corporations can effectively mandate arbitration agreements that preclude consumers from bringing class actions to combat fraud and enforce their rights
The way you framed it though, reveals exactly the problem I was talking about in my previous post: That you (as in the political left) are treating the Supreme Court as nothing but another avenue to push through any law you consider "good for the country", and strike down any legislation you consider "bad for the country".
It isn't the job of SCOTUS to decide what laws are good or bad for the country, though. That's the job of Congress. SCOTUS is meant to strictly test laws against the legal restrictions of the constitution (as it was intended by its writers).
Is seems that Justice Scalia was the only one who truly understood this, and the left hated his guts for it.
The only way Obama could do anything was by executive order because the GOP decided as soon as he was elected the first time to obstruct him.
The president isn't entitled to pass any laws at all. "Well he couldn't get what he wanted democratically, so he had to use undemocratic means!" is a terrible argument.
Also, it takes two sides to create an impasse. When was Obama ever willing to meaningfully compromise? As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I think she'd have managed to work with the Republicans.
The damage he's going to do will be far worse than any perceived anti-tyranny benefits. He is a climate change denier and his head of the EPA will be one as well he's going to burn the planet.
A climate pragmatist would be best, but a climate denier is still better than one of the quasi-religious climate alarmists that Hillary might have nominated.
The same hard science that tells us the climate is changing, also tells us that the policies proposed to reverse that change now are futile. The Kyoto Protocol and Paris Accords are bad jokes. Implementing them fully would plunge the world economy into its worst and longest-lasting recession ever, and condemn developing countries in the middle of industrialization to roll it back and linger another century in poverty - and it stillwouldn't make more than a tiny dent in the global temperature rise.
The advocates of the climate religion wouldn't care, of course - they'd continue to call each failed policy "an important symbolic first step" and keep demanding more of the same, not realizing that the previous attempt already exhausted all the low-hanging fruits for greenhouse gas reductions, and that the already terrible cost-benefit ratio will only get worse with each step along the way.
And let's not even get into the not-so-small extremist fringe who see climate change policy as an opportunity to make their wet dream of a socialist world government a reality. Better ten science deniers in positions of power, than one of those.
A sensible climate policy would involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions only by the small amount that is economically advantageous, and focus the remaining effort on adapting to a changed climate instead.
The policies a climate change denier would implement are close enough to that, even if they'd do it for the wrong reasons.
Not necessarily a bad thing. It could be a bad thing if it's done in such a way that only large corporations benefit, putting smaller companies even more at a fiscal disadvantage than they already are. Let's wait and see.
Abortion gets into religious territory; there's plenty of fundamental disagreement about when a fetus becomes a separate living thing, and that disagreement will likely never be resolved fully--not when that discussion involves the prospect of taking away a woman's right to her personal autonomy (on one side), and when it involves ending the life of a human being (on the other).
I'd strongly caution against debating it here.
The Hobby Lobby issue is fair, although I'd say the larger issue there is that you're absolutely right: an employer should have no responsibility, obligation, or role in the healthcare access of its employees. It's the best argument I've ever heard for a single-payer system, and the Hobby Lobby case is part it.
@ineth Pres. Obama bent over backwards to work with Republicans and they essentially tried to bring everything to a standstill for the last 7 1/2 years. That characterization that he wasn't willing to work with them is extremely unfair and inaccurate.
there's plenty of fundamental disagreement about when a fetus becomes a separate living thing, and that disagreement will likely never be resolved fully
There is certainly a margin for legitimate disagreement, but the "just a cluster of cells, until birth" line taken by the Democratic Party, is clearly insincere.
To pretend that a baby shortly before birth is meaningfully morally different from a baby shortly after birth, is not a coherent philosophy - it's a rationalization.
But fine, I'll drop the topic - let me just note that I get the impression that the liberal left in most other democratic countries is much more moderate on this topic (focusing on removing hurdles for early-term abortions, but not advocating for late-term and cruel methods), and it's only the US where one of the major political party is led by absolute abortion extremists who want abortions to be legal at any stage for any reason using any method.
(Not to mention the whole enrichment scheme they've got going on where the Democratic Party passes and protects large-scale tax payer funding for Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood in turn gives large campaign donations to the Democratic Party.)
Comments
France. Don't think it is going to be Le Pen, if it is Juppé against her, because he is viewed as a poper statesmanlike politican of some merit. Ex-president Sarkozy, Copé - it could go for Le Pen - a diluted, unauthentic version of her from the "mainstream" is not safe. (Nor desirable, IMO, anyway)
Hollad. The racist party will gain significant vote share, but probably will not accept governmental responsibility, because they know it would decimate their popularity. Such party could not deliver their "five minute solution to hard problems" promises, so it is essential for them to keep on barking at the passing caravan from the opposition.
Italy. We'll see. Parliamentary democracy in Italy has always been very volatile.
I am sorry to say: Poland and Hungary have been such malconent EU members of late, that I wish the next election will take them all the way. The relationship could be more constructive on 3rd party bases for each party.
Would be sorry to see those ideally close to EU - say Turkey, Moldova turn away, but maybe it must be so for the moment.
But most did of middle america did not, somehow? The rust belt thought somehow a New York billionaire was a blue collar guy who could help them get back their manufacturing industry that has been replaced by technology.
Meaning: if Trump committed crimes before assuming office of the President of the US, he is liable for criminal prosecution, albeit by all practical circumstances shielded by his status more than any average US citizen defrauding or harassing away.
Should Trump be criminally convicted, it is of course up to the US to accept him as a convicted offender, and the president.
Then only, should he commit crimes in the office, he'd be investigated under the presidential procedure.
And the other side are people that don't support him due to his racist, xenophobic statements and the alt-right policies such as climate change denial, rights suppression of LGBTQ, wall street de-regulation, and his assaults on women and minorities. We will get attacks on women's reproductive rights and might get creationism in schools if they aren't entirely replaced by a voucher system to privatize education.
On top of all this, we've had Brexit. Marie Le Pen in France may be the next domino to fall. Towering over everything is Putin, as every major Western power except for Germany (go figure) bends towards authoritarian leaders and white nationalism. What we're seeing is demagogues explaining away any economic hardship by scapegoating minority groups and immigrants, and uneducated people lapping it up, just like every other time in history. NATO hangs in the balance. Extrapolate out from there. Dangerous doesn't even begin to describe what's going on. I fear a major and terrible tipping point is being reached.
This country has alot of flaws. I remember how bad the Bush years were. I vigorously opposed McCain and Romney. But I never feared them. If they'd beaten Obama either time, I wouldn't have felt physically ill as election night went on. I think they would have been a disaster on many levels, but we would have been ok. I didn't view them as a threat to our entire system of government. Thinking about Donald Trump, reading the reporting on what he is planning to do, who he is appointing, fills me with a sense of dread I've never felt before in regards to our political system, and I follow and care about politics about as much as one can. This does not feel right.
Abolishing it entirely in favor of the popular vote is a mistake. It would just change the way campaigning is done now from touring in the swing states to touring in the big cities. It would be manipulated exactly the same way our political system is manipulated now. Just as we are complaining that the wrong voices were heard this election, we would be complaining that the wrong voices would be heard in every other election.
Having all states split their electoral college votes would inevitably end up favoring the Republican Party, because states like California, Washington, Oregon, and all of New England, which offer large amounts of electoral votes consistently Blue, would finally have some of their votes go Red. Southern states are very unlikely to go blue for all but a few of their votes.
I personally don't have any ideas for a good replacement. Anyone got any?
I will tell you, though, that I disagree it is indicative of either of the spokespeople for either the democratic and republican parties, or even as indicative of the either party or how our government works at all.
What struck me the most was the portrayal of a media's ongoing effort to control thought. Some may argue that our media today does that. If that is true, I certainly don't believe it is done in an effort to crush us into nothingness by starving us and forcing us into misery, and certainly not in an extreme level as is portrayed in the book. Our media does try to sway thoughts and opinions in an attempt to make more money, and probably not with perfect self-awareness, as is the primary ingredient to the moral of the book.
I found the corruption of what the words in our language actually can mean incredibly insightful. The ministry of love is actually a torture chamber. The ministry of truth is actually a place intentionally dedicated to producing lies. And so on.
But just because someone lies or doesn't follow through, or even if they are rude, crude, or hateful, doesn't make them Orwellian. It is the open acknowledgement that attempting to control thought, and in so doing controlling the language one possesses to form those thoughts, in order to produce emotions and loyalty to a cause as the only way to stay in power, that makes one Orwellian.
Stalin and the Nazis were good examples of Orwellian thought control. The book was based on their forms of government, after all.
The internet, as it exists now, is the perfect antithesis to that form of thought control strategy, because it is freedom from money or resources to publish opinions and ideas, regardless of the unpopularity of those ideas and opinions. All arguments that we live in an Orwellian society fall flat simply on the virtue that the arguments actually exist, here, on the internet.
http://www.theworldisaterribleplace.com/ohcrap/things-to-do-now-the-tldr-checklist/
"Planning for a Trump Administration When You're Not A Straight Rich White Dude" with sections for things to do now, legal solutions, self defense, etc
It also is very unlikely to happen, seeing as the electoral college was designed to prevent the popular vote. We need a compromise of some sort.
Carry on!
Being a constitutional republic is what makes the US a stable democratic nation and guarantees the liberty of its citizens.
A "true democracy" would be a dictatorship of the majority (and would quickly turn into a conventional dictatorship once the majority finds a leader to exploit this system).
For someone who loves to hype himself into believing Trump is some sort of scary dictator (lol), you sure seem quick to discard what protects you from actual dictatorships in the future.
You're not a lone in that, of course, Over the last 20 years or so, the Democratic Party's commitment to the constitution has deteriorated steadily. Because getting a majority in Congress and Senate was too much work, they've increasingly tried to bypass the constitution and implement laws without the approval of Congress, be it by filling the Supreme Court with left-wing judges who think their job is to invent new laws based on their personal philosophy/morality rather than to enforce the constitution as it is written, or by so-called "Executive Orders" (more apt. "illegal power grabs") by the president.
If Trump appoints a conservative (a.k.a. constitution-respecting) judge to SCOTUS and cancels Obama's unconstitutional executive orders, that will be a step away from dictatorship, not towards it.
If he keeps those two promises, then electing him instead of Clinton into office will already have been worth it. He can then break all his other promises and drink cocktails in his penthouse for 4 years, for all I care.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the 5-4 majority overturned federal election law and prior decisions and ruled that corporations have a constitutional right to make unlimited campaign expenditures, seriously distorting election campaigns and our democracy(!)
In Gonzales v. Carhart, the 5-4 Court majority effectively overruled a decision and upheld a federal ban on certain late-term abortions
The 5-4 majority in Michigan v. EPA overturned EPA regulations safeguarding communities from toxic pollution by power plants that causes up to 11,000 premature deaths each year
The 5-4 majority in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. decided that for-profit corporations can claim religious rights and can exempt themselves from federal laws requiring them to provide contraceptive coverage to employees. The majority also rewrote the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, with potentially dangerous consequences for LGBT and other Americans
In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the 5-4 majority ruled that corporations can effectively mandate arbitration agreements that preclude consumers from bringing class actions to combat fraud and enforce their rights
The 5-4 majority in Shelby County v. Holder overturned a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, making it much harder to protect against discrimination in voting
In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., the 5-4 Court majority made it virtually impossible to bring a claim of long-running sex or race discrimination in pay under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a decision later reversed by a congressional statute
The 5-4 majority in Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc. overruled a 96-year-old rule that had made vertical price fixing per se illegal under federal antitrust law
In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, the 5-4 Court majority prohibited school districts from attempting voluntarily to promote school desegregation through student reassignment plans
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the 5-4 majority struck down a law regulating the ownership and use of guns and ruled for the first time that individuals have a constitutional right to have guns
In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, the 5-4 Court majority ruled that local officials can strip-search anyone accused of any crime, even if there is no reason to suspect contraband or concealed weapons, and cannot be sued for invasion of privacy
The only way Obama could do anything was by executive order because the GOP decided as soon as he was elected the first time to obstruct him.
Quote
Republican leaders in Congress have proven they won’t work with my Administration, but along the way, they’ve lost sight of their basic mission. They can’t even meet their own goals. Republicans say they care about good paying jobs, but they’re ignoring one of the best ways to create them by refusing to make long overdue investments rebuilding our roads, bridges, ports and airports. A major infrastructure push would put Americans back to work and make our businesses more competitive – but Congress can’t get it done. They can’t move the ball forward on tax reform, one of the GOP’s biggest priorities, and they continue to delay serious funding to combat an opioid epidemic that has devastated the lives of many of their constituents. They talk a great deal about poverty, but refuse to address it in a meaningful way.
On countless priorities – issues that matter to people across the country, regardless of their politics – Republicans in Washington have traded progress for partisanship."
So if you applaud the GOP for sticking to their guns and refusing to do anything for the country even pass their own legislation because it might in some small way make obama look good then I guess you win there.
Despite the spin of the right wing media, Executive orders are not inherently bad, here's a USA today article on the very subject. The damage he's going to do will be far worse than any perceived anti-tyranny benefits. He is a climate change denier and his head of the EPA will be one as well he's going to burn the planet. His rhetoric has emboldened and given new life to racists and hate crimes are way up since he has been elected. He and an unchecked GOP government will cut taxes on corporations and restrict civil liberties for anyone who's not a straight rich white male.
In other words, stuff that actually happened, rather than vague generalities.
When police departments drive around and are randomly scanning everyone's license plates, looking for open warrants, your civil liberties have already been restricted.
When two radicalized young men detonate explosive devices at the Boston Marathon, resulting in police ordering everyone to go inside and submit to house-to-house searches, your civil liberties have already been restricted. (If you didn't set off the devices you are innocent--in this instance the police presumed that everyone was guilty until they were proven to be innocent, which is the opposite of how our justice system is supposed to work.)
When local government coordinates with corporate interests and buys out your property for a sports stadium or retail development, misusing eminent domain, your civil liberties have already been restricted. Presented for your viewing pleasure, Executive Order 9066. This order allowed the military to classify any area as a "military zone" and they could forcibly remove anyone who might be a spy or saboteur from that area. The end result: over 70,000 United States citizens of Japanese ancestry, as well as 11,000 citizens of German ancestry and 3,000 citizens of Italian ancestry, were rounded up and put in camps. These camps had guard towers with snipers and were surrounded by barbed wire. See also Executive Order 9102, which went right along with it.
That sounds pretty bad to me.
And with some of the abortion methods the Dems are trying to legalize, it's particularly cruel murder.
The constitution doesn't prevent Congress from restricting people's access to murder, so SCOTUS was right to uphold that law. Rightly so.
Companies consist of people, and in case of family enterprises the company effectively is the people that own it.
The idea that citizens suddenly loose their civil rights the moment they make money off something, is neither morally sound nor supported by the constitution.
Also, the whole "reproductive rights" framing of this issue was completely bogus.
It is not a right to have any particular goods that you want to consume in your private life, paid for and provided to you by your employer. There is no such right, neither constitutionally nor morally.
It's shameless how much the left has distorted the language of "rights" to express things they *want*.
You want something? Buy it. Leave third parties out of it. No, it ruled that a certain national law overrules certain state laws.
The way you framed it though, reveals exactly the problem I was talking about in my previous post: That you (as in the political left) are treating the Supreme Court as nothing but another avenue to push through any law you consider "good for the country", and strike down any legislation you consider "bad for the country".
It isn't the job of SCOTUS to decide what laws are good or bad for the country, though. That's the job of Congress.
SCOTUS is meant to strictly test laws against the legal restrictions of the constitution (as it was intended by its writers).
Is seems that Justice Scalia was the only one who truly understood this, and the left hated his guts for it. The president isn't entitled to pass any laws at all. "Well he couldn't get what he wanted democratically, so he had to use undemocratic means!" is a terrible argument.
Also, it takes two sides to create an impasse. When was Obama ever willing to meaningfully compromise? As much as I dislike Hillary Clinton, I think she'd have managed to work with the Republicans.
The same hard science that tells us the climate is changing, also tells us that the policies proposed to reverse that change now are futile.
The Kyoto Protocol and Paris Accords are bad jokes. Implementing them fully would plunge the world economy into its worst and longest-lasting recession ever, and condemn developing countries in the middle of industrialization to roll it back and linger another century in poverty - and it still wouldn't make more than a tiny dent in the global temperature rise.
The advocates of the climate religion wouldn't care, of course - they'd continue to call each failed policy "an important symbolic first step" and keep demanding more of the same, not realizing that the previous attempt already exhausted all the low-hanging fruits for greenhouse gas reductions, and that the already terrible cost-benefit ratio will only get worse with each step along the way.
And let's not even get into the not-so-small extremist fringe who see climate change policy as an opportunity to make their wet dream of a socialist world government a reality. Better ten science deniers in positions of power, than one of those.
A sensible climate policy would involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions only by the small amount that is economically advantageous, and focus the remaining effort on adapting to a changed climate instead.
The policies a climate change denier would implement are close enough to that, even if they'd do it for the wrong reasons. Don't believe every post-election statistic that is bandied about.
Newspapers claimed the same thing in the UK after Brexit, and it was most likely a myth. Not necessarily a bad thing.
It could be a bad thing if it's done in such a way that only large corporations benefit, putting smaller companies even more at a fiscal disadvantage than they already are. Let's wait and see. Which ones?
(Remember, forcing others to give you things you want is not a civil liberty.)
I'd strongly caution against debating it here.
The Hobby Lobby issue is fair, although I'd say the larger issue there is that you're absolutely right: an employer should have no responsibility, obligation, or role in the healthcare access of its employees. It's the best argument I've ever heard for a single-payer system, and the Hobby Lobby case is part it.
To pretend that a baby shortly before birth is meaningfully morally different from a baby shortly after birth, is not a coherent philosophy - it's a rationalization.
But fine, I'll drop the topic - let me just note that I get the impression that the liberal left in most other democratic countries is much more moderate on this topic (focusing on removing hurdles for early-term abortions, but not advocating for late-term and cruel methods), and it's only the US where one of the major political party is led by absolute abortion extremists who want abortions to be legal at any stage for any reason using any method.
(Not to mention the whole enrichment scheme they've got going on where the Democratic Party passes and protects large-scale tax payer funding for Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood in turn gives large campaign donations to the Democratic Party.)