I very much doubt we'll see any states seceding from the Union. Putting aside the general unpopularity of the concept (anyone who suggests it is going to sound like a Confederate), there's no way the Republican party would surrender the electoral votes from Texas or the Democratic party would surrender the electoral votes of California. Even a smaller state's secession could have major effects on electoral strategies.
That's precisely why I said 4 or 5 separate countries. California, Oregon, Hawaii & Washington one country. New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania & New Hampshire another. West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, & Kansas another. Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Virginia, Delaware, Georgia, the Carolinas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas yet another. Finally, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, the Dakota's and Alaska.
Will the real United States please stand up?
Is there one? United, that is?
It's probably not THAT bad. Even the worst (well, except for D.C. itself) state in 2016, the farthest from average was not too terrible. By % per state, Trump ranged 30-69%, Clinton ranged 22-62%. If you eliminated W. Virginia, Wyoming, and Hawai'i as outliers (because they were uniformly the best/worst for each), it was 30%-65% Trump, 27-62% Clinton.
That is, the states, taken as a whole state, are not THAT imbalanced. It's not like every single Texan is a gun toting, beer-guzzling, wife-beating inbred redneck cowboy. Nor is every single Californian a free-love gay transvestite illegal immigrant.
Granted. But what is the solution other than disintegrating the USA? 40%, 40%, 20% seems like a recipe for deadlock to me.
It sure seems to bigger states like California and New York that they are getting taxationated without representation. They have millions of people who don't count due to bullshit like the electoral college, gerrymandering in other states and especially the artificial restrictions on the House of Representatives and the Senate that let's Wyoming, a empty state with two people, dictate what millions of people have to put up with.
It sure seems to bigger states like California and New York that they are getting taxationated without representation. They have millions of people who don't count due to bullshit like the electoral college, gerrymandering in other states and especially the artificial restrictions on the House of Representatives and the Senate that let's Wyoming, a empty state with two people, dictate what millions of people have to put up with.
Well, hey I guess they can leave then if it really bothers them that much. Like I said, I sincerely doubt there would be the will to stop them like in 1860. Wait, maybe there's a reason they'd want to stay? Sacrilege!
You know what the US needs to do? Rewrite its Constitution.
Just lock 55 people in a room and tell them they can't come out until they drafted something 50 of them can agree on. One person from each state + Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
I've actually wondered about the prospects for a new Constitutional Convention--not to re-write the thing from scratch, exactly, but to fix some new problems that are too difficult for Congress to agree on on its own. The new document would be an amended version of the old one.
The last Constitutional Convention was very small in scale and it just happened to be spearheaded by some intelligence and forward-thinking people (we got lucky in that respect), so I think the new one would have to be organized a little differently. I think the deliberations should be secret like in the last Constitutional Convention, but the delegates should be selected differently. I would suggest randomly selecting pools of people from across the country, and having each pool elect one of its members to serve as a delegate. This way we can get some higher-quality citizens without making them dependent on small elections, which political parties could easily manipulate.
We'd then randomly pick some legislators of various levels and some law professors and political scientists to attend the convention, who would serve strictly in an advisory role. This would give the convention access to experienced hands and educated minds while still keeping power in the hands of the delegates.
The delegates would craft new amendments to fix systemic problems in our system, and Congressional representatives would be expected to pass the amendments on the grounds that they were written by a non-partisan, representative, and well-informed body that was free from political manipulation and bias.
What kind of changes would you guys make to the Constitution? I would add amendments that would:
1. Forbid Congress from restricting American citizens' right to vote (currently there is no such amendment) 2. Make new rules for the redistricting process to prevent gerrymandering (politicians should not be in charge of the process, and there should be rules about how the lines should be drawn) 3. Establish term limits for Congressional representatives, senators, and Supreme Court justices (same reason we have term limits for Presidents: to avoid concentrated power) 4. Ban campaign contributions and establish publicly funded campaigns based on petitions
My wife just got up and came in to see me. Rather than a 'good morning' her opening statement was on the lines of 'you'll never guess what Trump has said now'. She has very little interest in politics (either UK or US), but even to her the sound of Trump calling on the media to "stop the endless hostility" left her incredulous.
To be fair I agree with Trump's statement. I would be amazed if he doesn't ignore it entirely going forward, but would certainly be pleased if that's not the case.
My wife just got up and came in to see me. Rather than a 'good morning' her opening statement was on the lines of 'you'll never guess what Trump has said now'. She has very little interest in politics (either UK or US), but even to her the sound of Trump calling on the media to "stop the endless hostility" left her incredulous.
To be fair I agree with Trump's statement. I would be amazed if he doesn't ignore it entirely going forward, but would certainly be pleased if that's not the case.
He did exactly what he did with Charlottesville. He makes some milquetoast statement condemning the violence, and then hours later does a "wink, wink nudge, nudge" to the crazies. Because he is incapable of denouncing them fully. At the Florida Governor's debate there were people outside with signs claiming the bombs were fake, simply a liberal false-flag to win sympathy. Why?? Likely because hours earlier, Rush Limbaugh, the most widely-syndicated radio host in America, told them so on his program. There is no doubt that millions of people believe this. Maybe we should wrap out heads around the idea that someone attempted to assassinate a large number of the major figures in one of our political parties in this country yesterday, including two former Presidents, a former Secretary of State, an Attorney General, two sitting Congresswomen, and the staff of the news network that Donald Trump just so happens to call out on a daily basis. And the media itself is basically treating it like it is the functional equivalent of yelling at someone in a restaurant, which is insane.
Edit: just minutes ago, actor Robert DeNiro has received one of the bomb packages. I'm sure we'll all remember the hoopla that ensued when he said "f**k Trump" at an awards show. It is silly to ignore what is going on here. I would be absolutely shocked if the person doing this isn't an avid consumer of right-wing media. Whether the bombs went off or not isn't really the point. If even ONE of them had gone off, what kind of situation would we be looking at this morning?? And if EVERYONE doesn't specifically refer to this as a domestic terrorist attack at every opportunity, we should again just retire the word.
Josh Marshal with a solemn, nuanced take over at TPM:
It’s part of the human condition that anger builds on itself and leads, sometimes, to violence. But so much of the public dialog at the moment returns to this concept of ‘civility’. You’ve got pro- and anti-civility folks. You’ve got critiques of ‘civility’ as the wrapper into which we package hierarchy and deference. Characterologically, for better or worse, I tend to be pro-civility. I don’t really like seeing people accosted or shouted at in restaurants. But I think we can settle on a simpler point. Civility has relatively little to do with political violence or the kind of totalizing and dehumanizing political rhetoric and action that spawns it.
Today on Twitter Jon Meachem wrote this: “The attempted assassinations today clearly amount to a terrorist attack on America. A solemn moment that should remind the politically divisive that decency is an essential element of civilization.”
Decency, being nice, presuming all speech and political actions are based on good faith rather than ill will – these are all fine enough things if you can manage them. But those mores can be difficult to sustain when society is attempting to litigate fundamental disagreements which are difficult and maybe impossible to solve through compromise.
The real line is the one President Trump crosses almost daily: ‘jokes’ about state violence against political enemies, apocalyptic or dehumanizing rhetoric like calling the press the “enemy of the people” which invites violence, the kinds of casual slanders we hear about Jewish billionaires or the Democratic party organizing hordes of immigrants to storm the country’s borders. These are the kinds of actions that start to make civic life, democratic life, difficult and then impossible.
I don’t deny that a certain level of polarization, coarseness in the way we talk to each other or reflexive presumptions of bad faith can lead us toward Trumpian type rhetoric. But that’s like a gateway drug argument. Sure, it happens with some people. But mostly not. The simple truth is that we can live with our politics being raucous, aggressive and even mean. What kills civic life is not only violence but violent incitement, rhetoric of dehumanization and the politics of aggression and hate that is still largely the exclusive possession of the political right in the United States today.
And true to form, like CLOCKWORK, here comes Trump this morning:
What Trump is basically saying here is the same as telling a woman "you got raped because of the clothes you wore. If you don't stop wearing them, it's highly likely you will be raped again, and it will be your fault then too". So to answer your question @Grond0, Trump has provided your answer. As always, after the initial fake "unity" sentiment, he doubles down on the absolute worst side possible. Hopefully your wife misses this one so it doesn't upset her too much. God knows those of you outside this nuthouse should try to inoculate yourselves from this madness the best you can. I can't get over this idea that people give Trump a pass for "everything but the tweets". The tweets ARE the real Trump. That is him sitting alone in a room letting you know what he really thinks. How many times are people going to play Charlie Brown to his Lucy when he pretends to actually say the right thing for (maybe) 8-12 hours before reverting to the mean??
So wait, is Trump actually taking sides with the bomber?
Taking sides?? I don't know if I would go that far, but he is absolutely excusing it as understandable because of how he perceives he is being treated by the media and his "enemies". As if pipe bombs are the only logical outcome to him getting bad press. Another key thing about Trump's calls for violence at his campaign rallies is that, unlike alot of clips you will hear about Eric Holder saying "when they go low, we kick them" (which is clearly no different than someone saying "don't bring a knife to a gun fight", seeing as he specifically said he meant politically two seconds later), NONE of what Trump says is meant to be taken metaphorically. When Trump called for attendees at his rallies to beat up protesters, they did so. When he said Charlottesville was "both sides", he was specifically saying that the people who surrounded an occupied church with LIT TORCHES were no worse than the people opposing them. And now he is specifically saying "yeah, these pipe bombs are bad, but it probably wouldn't be happening if people would just support me more". I mean, we are so far through the looking-glass it's hard to see how we come out the other end at this point.
Edit: Add Joe Biden to the list of people who were mailed the packages. We are now in day 2 of this. Who knows how many more are out there.
What kind of changes would you guys make to the Constitution? I would add amendments that would:
1. Forbid Congress from restricting American citizens' right to vote (currently there is no such amendment) 2. Make new rules for the redistricting process to prevent gerrymandering (politicians should not be in charge of the process, and there should be rules about how the lines should be drawn) 3. Establish term limits for Congressional representatives, senators, and Supreme Court justices (same reason we have term limits for Presidents: to avoid concentrated power) 4. Ban campaign contributions and establish publicly funded campaigns based on petitions
1) A few details to work out for this. Consider someone in prison--do they vote via absentee ballot in their home district or in the district for the prison? (probably home district, since that is their "home" address)
2) there is a simple answer using lines not drawn for political reasons--make political districts match postal zip codes.
3) I have been advocating for this for *years*. My system was a hard term limit--any individual person may serve a maximum of 12 years in any combination of political offices at the Federal level,which allows people to jump between the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office, but once your 12 years are over then so are you. I could agree to allowing SCOTUS Justices to serve 18 years but stagger them all so that every 2 years a new Justice is appointed to the Court. (on a tangentially-related note, Congress has the authority to set the number of Justices on the SCOTUS)
4) this is another thing I have been advocating for a long time. Allowing essentially unlimited dark money funneled into campaigns via PACs is doing more to destabilize politics than anything else we have ever done here.
The first amendment I would propose would make all Federal laws have an automatic sunset after 10 years; when that time expires, either Congress votes to extend the law for another 10 years or it ceases to be a law. Laws which turn out to be good pieces of legislation will remain while those which are not will disappear.
The second amendment I would propose would end the process of political parties nominating a ticket of President and Vice-President. Instead, parties would nominate someone for President then the person who wins the election gets the Oval Office while the 2nd place finisher becomes Vice President. This would ultimately create an inherent "centering" in our political system as the two dominant sides would be required to get along with one another.
The third amendment would require all Federal laws to pass only if they receive 60% of the votes in either the House or the Senate. That isn't quite a supermajority but "50% + 1" is a really low bar and allows for some poor-quality legislation.
The fourth amendment would outlaw professional lobbying of politicians--no more allowing representatives of a corporate industry (Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc) to run around the halls of Congress, passing out campaign donation checks while they browse around shopping for someone to sponsor their pre-drafted legislation.
On other related topics...
Individual States may change the rules how their Electors vote. Most States have a soft requirement that they cast their vote for the candidate who won the plurality (the candidate with the most votes wins, not a majority of the votes) but assigning the votes based on the outcome makes more sense--if candidate A got 45% of the votes then they get 45% of the electoral votes (rounded up to the nearest integer). Doing away with the Electoral College completely would require a Constitutional amendment, which is not going to happen any time soon.
The bent of this thread tends to ebb and flow. Lately it's been majority liberal by a considerable degree, but it vacillates back and forth. We've had a conservative bent to the thread at certain times in the past, though we more often have a liberal bent because the liberal posters tend to be more consistently active on the forum. Several of the most strongly conservative posters only stop by occasionally, like @SorcererV1ct0r.
I an right lib not conservative. Sure, between a politician who will take some rights of association and a politician who praises the Venezuelan model, i will chose the first(less evil), the ideal is economic and social freedom, but i don't agree with interventionism. Problems like refugee crisis, government debt, etc only becomes worse thanks to interventionism.
But i criticize the left because i know how is to live in a mostly left country. I know what is an strict gun control who makes permanent blinding a man(destroying a life) giving less prison time than owning a illegal 9mm(note that any pistol stronger than the anemic .380 is restricted and takes an eternity to get a legal weapon), how have affirmative actions to protect the non white majority from white minority and some politicians wanting to expand it to companies, making impossible for me get a job(doesn't matter if slavery ended by a blonde, blue eyed princess - Isabel), i know how hard is to have no freedom os speech, no gun right, no defense rights and be a tax salve with an public healthcare that costs insanely high to the tax payer and have insane long waiting times and that allows sex exchange surgery but doesn't allow facial reconstruction, how centralization always fails and honestly think that nobody deserves live on my country.
Brazil should't even exist IMO. Northeast should be Dutch( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Brazil ), the south should be independent, SP too and Amazonas should be an owned by his original owners(indigenous)
Is the solution then to fractionate a country into even more separate countries if that's the case? I guess it sort of worked for Yugoslavia and the USSR (eventually). It would be better if people could learn to just get along (imo) but maybe that really is a pipe dream. For my country, the USA, maybe we should just split into 4 or 5 separate countries . I honestly don't really think that's a horrible idea anymore...
Edit: Of course, that's exactly what Russia and China want and are striving to achieve.
On USA i think that is more easy to allow states/cities to not follow federal laws/regulations/etc than a secession. For example, if a state don't wanna the NFA(national firearms act), IMHO the state should able to have a different law or no law regulating firearms. Same with copyright, drugs, marriage, divorce, etc; let everyone decide his own rules like USA was in the past. USA like the name suggests should be a union of states, not an centralized continental country. Of course, this is just an "outsider opinion".
The problem with a President and VP of different political parties makes it difficult for anything to get down. At the beginning of the USA, that is exactly what happened. You put forward a candidate for President and whoever didn't win became VP.
Now, that's almost impossible because of the 12th Amendment.
Also, the reason why certain things are equalized in all the states or they have the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is because imagine having to apply for 50 different driver's licenses because each state required something different to learn to drive or hold a driver's license. Imagine applying for 50 separate copyright forms. Or marriage licenses so that your marriage will be recognized by every state you go to.
There is a reason why some things are national laws, despite being handled by each state individually.
I believe I mentioned Posse Comitatus a few pages back.
Of course, the caravan is not just women and children--even though he was not part of the current caravan did you read the article I cited yesterday? The person interviewed stated quite plainly that the end of the family separations help him make up his mind to make the journey to the border.
Incidentally, I am curious--does anyone here think of this caravan as a truly good thing? If so, what led you to that conclusion? Personally, I think it is a molehill being spun into a mountain but it is wise to seek other viewpoints.
A couple of stories of interest from the UK today:
Sir Philip Green has been named as the subject of a story by the telegraph on sexual and racial harassment. Green had obtained a court injunction to prevent publication of the story, but this was circumvented by Peter Hain using Parliamentary Privilege to name him. It's pretty rare for Parliamentary statements to cut across court orders in that way - the fact that it happened here probably reflects the poor reputation Green has acquired in the last few years as a result of some dodgy business dealings. Hain explained that he felt it in the public interest to make the story known despite the court order. One other point of interest is that Green has used legal settlements and non-disclosure agreements on a number of occasions to prevent alleged victims from discussing what's been done. The law around NDAs in the UK though allows more latitude to over-ride them in the public interest than in the US, so I suspect that more details will be put in the public arena on this soon.
In future women will be able to take up any role in the British armed forces - including serving in elite special forces such as SAS. This concludes a process that's been ongoing for a number of years now, gradually increasing the potential scope of roles for women.
I believe I mentioned Posse Comitatus a few pages back.
Of course, the caravan is not just women and children--even though he was not part of the current caravan did you read the article I cited yesterday? The person interviewed stated quite plainly that the end of the family separations help him make up his mind to make the journey to the border.
Incidentally, I am curious--does anyone here think of this caravan as a truly good thing? If so, what led you to that conclusion? Personally, I think it is a molehill being spun into a mountain but it is wise to seek other viewpoints.
I agree it's a molehill being spun into a mountain. Even at 20 miles a day, it will take them 63 days to get to America from where they are, and 20 miles is a lot to ask for kids to do.
Is it a good thing? For the refugees, it's probably a very good thing. For me, I hardly think 6500 people is going to make anything of a difference. I think the reason why Trump and his followers are so opposed to them is because they aren't "White", whatever that means to them.
I mean, we're talking about people who can't tell the difference between "brown people" and Muslims. Thus, Trump's contention that there are Muslims hidden in the caravan. Heck, I don't think 99% of his followers can tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim- nor would they care. They are both brown people, so the GTFO of "our country".
I believe I mentioned Posse Comitatus a few pages back.
Of course, the caravan is not just women and children--even though he was not part of the current caravan did you read the article I cited yesterday? The person interviewed stated quite plainly that the end of the family separations help him make up his mind to make the journey to the border.
Incidentally, I am curious--does anyone here think of this caravan as a truly good thing? If so, what led you to that conclusion? Personally, I think it is a molehill being spun into a mountain but it is wise to seek other viewpoints.
It obviously isn’t a good thing.
But look at it this way. These people are willing to walk countless miles for the opportunity to keep their family safe. Nothing is given if they actually reach the border and I am pretty sure most of them know that. A good chunk of them are probably going to be denied, but they obviously think the risk is worth it for their family. Now would you walk countless miles for an opportunity to save your family?
The troops at the border, it all depends on what they are being sent for. If it is to help process these people quickly and to help keep the peace (as that is a large burden for whichever state they enter at) and set up interment camps as all these people get registered/checked, then I have no qualms about it. When they arrive, it will be a state of emergency IMO.
If it is to set up a blockaide so they all have to enter illegally where upon they are all arrested and detained by the military so right wing pundits can claim they are all criminals, then no.
I agree it's a molehill being spun into a mountain. Even at 20 miles a day, it will take them 63 days to get to America from where they are, and 20 miles is a lot to ask for kids to do.
Is it a good thing? For the refugees, it's probably a very good thing. For me, I hardly think 6500 people is going to make anything of a difference. I think the reason why Trump and his followers are so opposed to them is because they aren't "White", whatever that means to them.
I mean, we're talking about people who can't tell the difference between "brown people" and Muslims. Thus, Trump's contention that there are Muslims hidden in the caravan. Heck, I don't think 99% of his followers can tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim- nor would they care. They are both brown people, so the GTFO of "our country".
I am glad you mentioned skin color because that particular issue has always puzzled me. Why do most people think "brown" when they hear "Mexican", "Hispanic", or "Latino"? Our daughter's ex-boyfriend is of Mexican descent--his father is from San Antonio, his mother from Monterrey, and his grandmother still lives in Mexico City (they go see her several times each year). When they were dating and standing side by side, an observer with no knowledge of them would have concluded "they have the same ethnic background". Of course, I ignore skin color and ethnicity completely; to me, those things are irrelevant--I don't care what your skin tone is and I certainly don't care where your family came from.
Does anyone really know how many people are in the caravan? I have seen 5000, 6500, 12000, and 14000 as the count but I am certain that all of those are inaccurate.
Now would you walk countless miles for an opportunity to save your family?
Yes.
Most of these people originated in Honduras, a country which has been a hotbed of localized violence and rampant corruption among police and politicians for a long time. Given that the situation there has deteriorated this badly, certainly representatives from our State Department can meet with representatives from Tegucigalpa to see what can be done to improve things in that country without having to involve any military personnel or engaging in a new round of regime change--no one wants that. If the problem is out-of-control gang violence then improve the equipment law enforcement officials have there...but send in observers to make certain that the police do not replace the gangs as the source of violence plaguing the people. I won't happen overnight, but it seems logical that the medium- and long-term improvements would be worth an initial investment. Or maybe *I* am being naive for once.
On the other hand, even if we do that some people will still accuse us of being the world's policeman, or being a regional bully, or act as if we are trying to take over that country via a puppet government.
The other things to consider are: how long do we help another country before we expect them to stand on their own two feet?
if we help everyone, don't we run the risk of not being to help ourselves? Money spent to feed a hungry person in a foreign nation is money not being spent to feed a hungry person here.
If it is to set up a blockaide so they all have to enter illegally where upon they are all arrested and detained by the military so right wing pundits can claim they are all criminals, then no.
Technically, if a person enters the country illegally then they *are* a criminal. Of course, if you drive down to the convenience store a few blocks away and you don't put on your seat belt then you, also, are in violation of the law and thus technically a criminal, as well.
Clearly, not everyone in the caravan is a criminal; to say that they are is ridiculous. On the other hand, to claim that *none* of them are criminals is equally ridiculous.
@Mathsorcerer Here is a question for you. Trump is ignoring the Geneva Convention, making it harder and nearly impossible for immigrants to come here legally. What would you suggest for immigrants who wish to come here legally from what Trump has called "S**thole Countries"?
They can't stay in their home countries, and the US is obligated (through the Geneva Convention) to accept them. Jeff Sessions says, "Go to the legal border crossings", but it's not that simple...
Gunman, 51, who 'shot dead two black people at a Kentucky Kroger' and pleaded with armed passerby not to harm him because 'whites don't shoot whites' is arrested
As @LadyRhian mentioned in one of her news round-ups earlier, the Trump DOJ is now on record as being perfectly fine with employers discriminating against trans people:
I will say this unequivocally, with no hesitation. This is nothing but malicious cruelty for the sake of malicious cruelty. As if living as a transgender person in America isn't hard enough as it is. This is nothing more than an Administration catering to a group of people who take PLEASURE in knowing that, even if their live sucks, they have some group to kick and spit on. This is about actually feeling a sense of satisfaction that some transgender person somewhere is "getting what they deserve" because certain segments of the population find them weird and strange. There is nothing else behind this.
I don't know how many times I've been told Trump is "better" than the typical Republican on these issues. It's complete and utter bullshit. It was always transparently obvious he wouldn't be.
looking at the media i see that there's a bit of denialism and relativization regarding the caravan. supposedly that it's 1000 miles away, that it will take them a long time, that the number will decrease somehow means that it's not a serious issue that should be discussed now.
there's socal amnesia at work here
- a caravan has already come this year, a smaller one and it was in news. implications and consequences of that event were significant, and it was a genuine big story.
- migrants have been coming to europe in huge numbers in the past couple of years, and some have been crossing distances greater than 1000 miles. it was massive news.
so ehhm why this spin from the so called liberal mainstream media? why such deliberately weak non-critical relativist approach that dillutes the issue? i think it's because the media wants the bring the level of public debate down. the governments positions are very weak and inconsistent so they attack it with forcedly weak points to keep the discourse "balanced" and palatable even for the supporters of government.
The end result of the caravan is that we will probably kidnap (and this is the only word I will use for it) a couple thousand more kids and store them in tent cities in the desert while funneling money to shadowy private prison companies to do so. After all, even though no one talks about, the Trump Administration STILL hasn't complied with the court order from the last time this happened. Because even the law and orders of the court don't matter anymore. They ignore them. We won't just turn them away. This Administration will make sure they are punished for daring to try defile our sacred land. They are walking to an American they don't realize doesn't exist, or maybe never did.
The other things to consider are: how long do we help another country before we expect them to stand on their own two feet?
if we help everyone, don't we run the risk of not being to help ourselves? Money spent to feed a hungry person in a foreign nation is money not being spent to feed a hungry person here.
who gets helped first?
Don’t you say that the federal government can just print money? Isn’t this argument counter productive to that statement?
And international governments need to ask for help before the US or another western province intervenes.
Comments
Just lock 55 people in a room and tell them they can't come out until they drafted something 50 of them can agree on. One person from each state + Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
OK? Go.
The last Constitutional Convention was very small in scale and it just happened to be spearheaded by some intelligence and forward-thinking people (we got lucky in that respect), so I think the new one would have to be organized a little differently. I think the deliberations should be secret like in the last Constitutional Convention, but the delegates should be selected differently. I would suggest randomly selecting pools of people from across the country, and having each pool elect one of its members to serve as a delegate. This way we can get some higher-quality citizens without making them dependent on small elections, which political parties could easily manipulate.
We'd then randomly pick some legislators of various levels and some law professors and political scientists to attend the convention, who would serve strictly in an advisory role. This would give the convention access to experienced hands and educated minds while still keeping power in the hands of the delegates.
The delegates would craft new amendments to fix systemic problems in our system, and Congressional representatives would be expected to pass the amendments on the grounds that they were written by a non-partisan, representative, and well-informed body that was free from political manipulation and bias.
What kind of changes would you guys make to the Constitution? I would add amendments that would:
1. Forbid Congress from restricting American citizens' right to vote (currently there is no such amendment)
2. Make new rules for the redistricting process to prevent gerrymandering (politicians should not be in charge of the process, and there should be rules about how the lines should be drawn)
3. Establish term limits for Congressional representatives, senators, and Supreme Court justices (same reason we have term limits for Presidents: to avoid concentrated power)
4. Ban campaign contributions and establish publicly funded campaigns based on petitions
To be fair I agree with Trump's statement. I would be amazed if he doesn't ignore it entirely going forward, but would certainly be pleased if that's not the case.
Edit: just minutes ago, actor Robert DeNiro has received one of the bomb packages. I'm sure we'll all remember the hoopla that ensued when he said "f**k Trump" at an awards show. It is silly to ignore what is going on here. I would be absolutely shocked if the person doing this isn't an avid consumer of right-wing media. Whether the bombs went off or not isn't really the point. If even ONE of them had gone off, what kind of situation would we be looking at this morning?? And if EVERYONE doesn't specifically refer to this as a domestic terrorist attack at every opportunity, we should again just retire the word.
Josh Marshal with a solemn, nuanced take over at TPM:
It’s part of the human condition that anger builds on itself and leads, sometimes, to violence. But so much of the public dialog at the moment returns to this concept of ‘civility’. You’ve got pro- and anti-civility folks. You’ve got critiques of ‘civility’ as the wrapper into which we package hierarchy and deference. Characterologically, for better or worse, I tend to be pro-civility. I don’t really like seeing people accosted or shouted at in restaurants. But I think we can settle on a simpler point. Civility has relatively little to do with political violence or the kind of totalizing and dehumanizing political rhetoric and action that spawns it.
Today on Twitter Jon Meachem wrote this: “The attempted assassinations today clearly amount to a terrorist attack on America. A solemn moment that should remind the politically divisive that decency is an essential element of civilization.”
Decency, being nice, presuming all speech and political actions are based on good faith rather than ill will – these are all fine enough things if you can manage them. But those mores can be difficult to sustain when society is attempting to litigate fundamental disagreements which are difficult and maybe impossible to solve through compromise.
The real line is the one President Trump crosses almost daily: ‘jokes’ about state violence against political enemies, apocalyptic or dehumanizing rhetoric like calling the press the “enemy of the people” which invites violence, the kinds of casual slanders we hear about Jewish billionaires or the Democratic party organizing hordes of immigrants to storm the country’s borders. These are the kinds of actions that start to make civic life, democratic life, difficult and then impossible.
I don’t deny that a certain level of polarization, coarseness in the way we talk to each other or reflexive presumptions of bad faith can lead us toward Trumpian type rhetoric. But that’s like a gateway drug argument. Sure, it happens with some people. But mostly not. The simple truth is that we can live with our politics being raucous, aggressive and even mean. What kills civic life is not only violence but violent incitement, rhetoric of dehumanization and the politics of aggression and hate that is still largely the exclusive possession of the political right in the United States today.
And true to form, like CLOCKWORK, here comes Trump this morning:
What Trump is basically saying here is the same as telling a woman "you got raped because of the clothes you wore. If you don't stop wearing them, it's highly likely you will be raped again, and it will be your fault then too". So to answer your question @Grond0, Trump has provided your answer. As always, after the initial fake "unity" sentiment, he doubles down on the absolute worst side possible. Hopefully your wife misses this one so it doesn't upset her too much. God knows those of you outside this nuthouse should try to inoculate yourselves from this madness the best you can. I can't get over this idea that people give Trump a pass for "everything but the tweets". The tweets ARE the real Trump. That is him sitting alone in a room letting you know what he really thinks. How many times are people going to play Charlie Brown to his Lucy when he pretends to actually say the right thing for (maybe) 8-12 hours before reverting to the mean??
Edit: Add Joe Biden to the list of people who were mailed the packages. We are now in day 2 of this. Who knows how many more are out there.
2) there is a simple answer using lines not drawn for political reasons--make political districts match postal zip codes.
3) I have been advocating for this for *years*. My system was a hard term limit--any individual person may serve a maximum of 12 years in any combination of political offices at the Federal level,which allows people to jump between the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office, but once your 12 years are over then so are you. I could agree to allowing SCOTUS Justices to serve 18 years but stagger them all so that every 2 years a new Justice is appointed to the Court. (on a tangentially-related note, Congress has the authority to set the number of Justices on the SCOTUS)
4) this is another thing I have been advocating for a long time. Allowing essentially unlimited dark money funneled into campaigns via PACs is doing more to destabilize politics than anything else we have ever done here.
The first amendment I would propose would make all Federal laws have an automatic sunset after 10 years; when that time expires, either Congress votes to extend the law for another 10 years or it ceases to be a law. Laws which turn out to be good pieces of legislation will remain while those which are not will disappear.
The second amendment I would propose would end the process of political parties nominating a ticket of President and Vice-President. Instead, parties would nominate someone for President then the person who wins the election gets the Oval Office while the 2nd place finisher becomes Vice President. This would ultimately create an inherent "centering" in our political system as the two dominant sides would be required to get along with one another.
The third amendment would require all Federal laws to pass only if they receive 60% of the votes in either the House or the Senate. That isn't quite a supermajority but "50% + 1" is a really low bar and allows for some poor-quality legislation.
The fourth amendment would outlaw professional lobbying of politicians--no more allowing representatives of a corporate industry (Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc) to run around the halls of Congress, passing out campaign donation checks while they browse around shopping for someone to sponsor their pre-drafted legislation.
On other related topics...
Individual States may change the rules how their Electors vote. Most States have a soft requirement that they cast their vote for the candidate who won the plurality (the candidate with the most votes wins, not a majority of the votes) but assigning the votes based on the outcome makes more sense--if candidate A got 45% of the votes then they get 45% of the electoral votes (rounded up to the nearest integer). Doing away with the Electoral College completely would require a Constitutional amendment, which is not going to happen any time soon.
I recommend the book The Not So Wild, Wild West
https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west
Now, that's almost impossible because of the 12th Amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Also, the reason why certain things are equalized in all the states or they have the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is because imagine having to apply for 50 different driver's licenses because each state required something different to learn to drive or hold a driver's license. Imagine applying for 50 separate copyright forms. Or marriage licenses so that your marriage will be recognized by every state you go to.
There is a reason why some things are national laws, despite being handled by each state individually.
So there you have it. We're sending nearly a 1000 troops to the border to project us against a bunch of desperate Honduran women and children.
Also, this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
North Carolina Lt. Governor Appears In Video On How To Commit Voter Fraud
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/north-carolina-lt-gov-dan-forest-voter-fraud-video?fbclid=IwAR1mWnOYS8r6HkoJV2y-_X0nWm7U5Es2y0TzzvRPhrLS2PX_adDFzemPbTQFormer GOP Candidate Arrested for Attempting to Kill With ‘Radioactive Material’
https://www.thedailybeast.com/former-gop-candidate-arrested-for-attempting-to-kill-with-radioactive-materialStudy shows two-thirds of U.S. terrorism tied to right-wing extremists
A new terrorism database analysis shows almost two-thirds of the terror attacks in the United States last year were carried out by right-wing extremists.https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/12/study-shows-two-thirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists?fbclid=IwAR2vw0y7UQFmRiViiu8ALHmlhPJUHKEOMKr4QPQyF3S3fhO2ytCtWxj87JY
The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act?cmpid=all_that_is_interesting_partner_pubexchange_facebook&fbclid=IwAR1jluvJvtavKrXV2UNt03vJDbSNMefVnOz4M_nCycmVrH4WES__HIK7bN8Trump continues to take calls from his iPhone even after American spy agencies have determined that China and Russia are listening
https://www.businessinsider.com/president-trump-continues-to-take-calls-from-his-iphone-2018-10?fbclid=IwAR0d9O_vfsktfbvPS5eRv0gzkcntdUTdbVNBExUvHn6bgCoBTSHFIUrIFCYDOJ: Businesses Can Discriminate Against Transgender Workers (1)
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/doj-businesses-can-discriminate-against-transgender-workers-1?fbclid=IwAR3nfGws3BAxnwQl_-ZvqpNAvW1B6Mr-S8tyh74jZHs0Ogg5TfMGcJ6t2hMExplosive device sent to CNN featured parody ISIS flag, 'Get 'Er Done' inscription
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/explosive-device-sent-cnn-featured-parody-isis-flag-get-er-n924166?fbclid=IwAR1bIxcduEgo1v_di4ZrJOZJ67Nx9FgA-w6LG1Wc6L-3TM_l32Bw0IX8XE8Of course, the caravan is not just women and children--even though he was not part of the current caravan did you read the article I cited yesterday? The person interviewed stated quite plainly that the end of the family separations help him make up his mind to make the journey to the border.
Incidentally, I am curious--does anyone here think of this caravan as a truly good thing? If so, what led you to that conclusion? Personally, I think it is a molehill being spun into a mountain but it is wise to seek other viewpoints.
Sir Philip Green has been named as the subject of a story by the telegraph on sexual and racial harassment. Green had obtained a court injunction to prevent publication of the story, but this was circumvented by Peter Hain using Parliamentary Privilege to name him. It's pretty rare for Parliamentary statements to cut across court orders in that way - the fact that it happened here probably reflects the poor reputation Green has acquired in the last few years as a result of some dodgy business dealings. Hain explained that he felt it in the public interest to make the story known despite the court order. One other point of interest is that Green has used legal settlements and non-disclosure agreements on a number of occasions to prevent alleged victims from discussing what's been done. The law around NDAs in the UK though allows more latitude to over-ride them in the public interest than in the US, so I suspect that more details will be put in the public arena on this soon.
In future women will be able to take up any role in the British armed forces - including serving in elite special forces such as SAS. This concludes a process that's been ongoing for a number of years now, gradually increasing the potential scope of roles for women.
Is it a good thing? For the refugees, it's probably a very good thing. For me, I hardly think 6500 people is going to make anything of a difference. I think the reason why Trump and his followers are so opposed to them is because they aren't "White", whatever that means to them.
I mean, we're talking about people who can't tell the difference between "brown people" and Muslims. Thus, Trump's contention that there are Muslims hidden in the caravan. Heck, I don't think 99% of his followers can tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim- nor would they care. They are both brown people, so the GTFO of "our country".
But look at it this way. These people are willing to walk countless miles for the opportunity to keep their family safe. Nothing is given if they actually reach the border and I am pretty sure most of them know that. A good chunk of them are probably going to be denied, but they obviously think the risk is worth it for their family. Now would you walk countless miles for an opportunity to save your family?
The troops at the border, it all depends on what they are being sent for. If it is to help process these people quickly and to help keep the peace (as that is a large burden for whichever state they enter at) and set up interment camps as all these people get registered/checked, then I have no qualms about it. When they arrive, it will be a state of emergency IMO.
If it is to set up a blockaide so they all have to enter illegally where upon they are all arrested and detained by the military so right wing pundits can claim they are all criminals, then no.
Does anyone really know how many people are in the caravan? I have seen 5000, 6500, 12000, and 14000 as the count but I am certain that all of those are inaccurate. Yes.
Most of these people originated in Honduras, a country which has been a hotbed of localized violence and rampant corruption among police and politicians for a long time. Given that the situation there has deteriorated this badly, certainly representatives from our State Department can meet with representatives from Tegucigalpa to see what can be done to improve things in that country without having to involve any military personnel or engaging in a new round of regime change--no one wants that. If the problem is out-of-control gang violence then improve the equipment law enforcement officials have there...but send in observers to make certain that the police do not replace the gangs as the source of violence plaguing the people. I won't happen overnight, but it seems logical that the medium- and long-term improvements would be worth an initial investment. Or maybe *I* am being naive for once.
On the other hand, even if we do that some people will still accuse us of being the world's policeman, or being a regional bully, or act as if we are trying to take over that country via a puppet government.
The other things to consider are:
how long do we help another country before we expect them to stand on their own two feet?
if we help everyone, don't we run the risk of not being to help ourselves? Money spent to feed a hungry person in a foreign nation is money not being spent to feed a hungry person here.
who gets helped first?
Technically, if a person enters the country illegally then they *are* a criminal. Of course, if you drive down to the convenience store a few blocks away and you don't put on your seat belt then you, also, are in violation of the law and thus technically a criminal, as well.
Clearly, not everyone in the caravan is a criminal; to say that they are is ridiculous. On the other hand, to claim that *none* of them are criminals is equally ridiculous.
They can't stay in their home countries, and the US is obligated (through the Geneva Convention) to accept them. Jeff Sessions says, "Go to the legal border crossings", but it's not that simple...
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2018/06/18/sessions-asylum-seekers-go-border-ports-but-its-not-easy/710796002/
DESPERATE ASYLUM-SEEKERS ARE BEING TURNED AWAY BY U.S. BORDER AGENTS CLAIMING THERE’S “NO ROOM”
https://theintercept.com/2018/06/16/immigration-border-asylum-central-america/What asylum-seekers meet when they try to cross legally
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-asylum-seekers-meet-when-they-try-to-cross-legallyHow crossing the US-Mexico border became a crime
http://theconversation.com/how-crossing-the-us-mexico-border-became-a-crime-74604Scotland launches an ad campaign that confronts homophobes and racists
https://www.the-pool.com/news-views/latest-news/2018/39/scotland-ad-campaign-confronts-homophobes-racists?fbclid=IwAR0n_RQzJQv3bzKT9r8ZWH1SzY-kQeJKmF6DlI1baJKEKYsxdGNHGkMAFMQRepublican calls for Kavanaugh accuser, lawyer to face criminal investigation
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republican-calls-kavanaugh-accuser-lawyer-criminally-investigated/story?id=58745407Gunman, 51, who 'shot dead two black people at a Kentucky Kroger' and pleaded with armed passerby not to harm him because 'whites don't shoot whites' is arrested
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316125/Man-51-Gregory-Bush-shot-dead-two-people-Kentucky-Kroger-arrested.html?fbclid=IwAR2uh3ad_OAZVsRuWajxbhD8Q2hhCFIkWuggMF-M_jwCGD0O4QMz8xbM8Hwhttps://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/413062-justice-department-says-businesses-can-discriminate-against-trans
I will say this unequivocally, with no hesitation. This is nothing but malicious cruelty for the sake of malicious cruelty. As if living as a transgender person in America isn't hard enough as it is. This is nothing more than an Administration catering to a group of people who take PLEASURE in knowing that, even if their live sucks, they have some group to kick and spit on. This is about actually feeling a sense of satisfaction that some transgender person somewhere is "getting what they deserve" because certain segments of the population find them weird and strange. There is nothing else behind this.
I don't know how many times I've been told Trump is "better" than the typical Republican on these issues. It's complete and utter bullshit. It was always transparently obvious he wouldn't be.
there's socal amnesia at work here
- a caravan has already come this year, a smaller one and it was in news. implications and consequences of that event were significant, and it was a genuine big story.
- migrants have been coming to europe in huge numbers in the past couple of years, and some have been crossing distances greater than 1000 miles. it was massive news.
so ehhm why this spin from the so called liberal mainstream media? why such deliberately weak non-critical relativist approach that dillutes the issue? i think it's because the media wants the bring the level of public debate down. the governments positions are very weak and inconsistent so they attack it with forcedly weak points to keep the discourse "balanced" and palatable even for the supporters of government.
Isn’t this argument counter productive to that statement?
And international governments need to ask for help before the US or another western province intervenes.
Trump Pastor Claims Women Sexually Assault Men By Dressing Provocatively
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/10/trump-pastor-claims-women-sexually-assault-men-dressing-provocatively/?fbclid=IwAR1f4NREwenpwLQpaDQlrdeo40gOoV0eIUF3MUAJmQYS0VpByPcICCmZJFgMSNBC’s Ali Velshi systematically rips apart GOP’s lies about protecting people with pre-existing conditions
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/msnbcs-ali-velshi-systematically-rips-apart-gops-lies-about-protecting-people-with-pre-existing-conditions/?fbclid=IwAR3rapLBkkDv_Crpbh-xSf6MENO_bQbQNpS8NhTowt5bluEXgnouCb0Ybl8Arrest made after black campaign worker threatened at early-voting location
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charlotte-north-carolina-police-armed-white-man-confronts-black-gop-volunteer/?fbclid=IwAR2pYu4kzO3ghHmRK3iakcHz5o3UMXFyu9Z_TbKwDg8S2nG2IBMR12_Pc_4Trump warns of violence if GOP loses midterms
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/28/donald-trump-warns-of-violence-midterms-sot-tsr-vpx.cnn?fbclid=IwAR0OPStVPFtWtaMdTN9ie42ohA2h_i484jpPbtUc8_DQMzaNSrbAWa3cN08