I've been doing a bit more reading about the way the US deals with treaties. If anyone's interested in that topic the following are all short and accessible articles.
Difference between the meaning of treaty in domestic US and international law. In international law a treaty is any agreement intended to have force in international law. The US domestic meaning of a treaty is much more specific, i.e. an agreement that has received the advice and consent of the Senate and ratification by the President.
Non-binding status of the Iran nuclear deal. The JCPOA was specifically set up as a political commitment rather than a binding international treaty - that was in order to allow Obama to enter into it without congressional approval. That of course meant that his successors were free to repudiate it (as has now been done). The argument about that is not whether repudiation was legally possible, but whether it sends the right international signals.
Contrasting views about the way the US enters into international agreements. The NY Times debate on this in 2015 included 3 articles from different perspectives. All are well-argued, so it's a good debate. I suppose I would summarize by saying that the US is notable internationally for the difficulty it has in entering into treaties. If it wishes to retain the historic constitutional system for such agreements then some streamlining of the Senate approval process is badly needed.
Obama could not get congressional approval to use the bathroom once the Democrats lost control of Congress.
Consider that today Republicans confirmed a judge to a lifetime position with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ― a vacancy that Republicans prevented President Barack Obama from filling for six years.
Under Obama things that Republicans were trying to do they flipped and they were no longer trying to accomplish once Obama became President. I can't find the link this second but there's at least one example of a Republican congressman scuttling his own bill, why do that unless you just want the American people to fail because maybe Obama might get some credit or whatever. Republicans in congress intentionally undermined Obama and threatened Iran directly at the time.
Obama entered an agreement with some of our closest international allies. That should be better than Congress. We got everything we wanted - Iran stopped trying to make nuclear weapons and because of diplomacy there were ten independent international inspections that confirmed they were abiding by the treaty.
But Trump and his (chicken) hawk advisors: Bolton, Pompeo and Sean Hannity don't like Iran. What do they want? Iran wasn't making nukes, what do you want? Distraction? Regime change? Again? The last time we overthrew the democratically elect government of Iran things didn't end well and we are where we are today literally because of that.
An article in the Times reported a correlation between education and partisanship. The theory is that partisan affiliation offers people a source of identification in a bigger social group. I'm not sure this theory fully explains the correlation, though. It makes sense to me that people get invested in their party and develop that classic "us vs. them" mindset or "siege mentality," but I don't know why more education would increase that, or less education would decrease it.
I would theorize that this would be because the more educated, the more you "invest" in a particular ideology over the other. Spend an hour learning about what interests you, spend maybe 5 minutes on something you don't like.
Hrm, for example. As a liberal, say I choose to learn more about liberal policies. I learn about general renewables in elementary school. I do my own organic minifarming in high school. When I'm in college I'm taking up electrical engineering and building my own solar arrays for my house when I graduate. Meanwhile, I'm researching about fossil fuels while taking chemistry classes and disgusted to learn about annual environmental carbon budgets in the carbon cycle and how humanity is throwing that balance out the window.
Were I not college educated, I'd have been in the dark past "renewables = gud" and not have spent years having it driven into me about the "evils" of fossil fuels. (Which, while I think they had a use, we are at the technological point where its time to move past them as the primary driver of civilization's energy producer. I certainly can't ethically say its evil when western civilization has gotten where it is because of fossil fuels and while I still drive a gas-powered car.)
I actually had to try looking up what the most conservative majors are aside from "business". Interestingly, while it's easy to find the political leanings of a university, there doesn't seem to be much reports on the political leanings of each major. I did find an uncited page saying that insurance is the most conservative sector of business majors.
I have trouble putting myself in a conservative's thought bubble, because I feel most conservative issues don't turn on years of education. How much can education sway you on leaning pro/anti-abortion? Gun control? Immigration? Taxation? They are often, if not more, about feelings of fear, outrage, control, or loss than rational, educated research.
Progress takes thought and work to move forward past the status quo. The Founding Fathers, for their time, were incredibly liberal. These days, they look extremely conservative.
In 50 years, I expect we will consider this era much as we now consider the 1960s, a time of strife between conservative and liberal ideologies.
In Australia, seven people were found dead on Friday as a result of gunshots including four children. This is the worst mass shooting there since 1996.
In America, it's a Tuesday. Since 1996 there have been literally thousands of mass shootings in the United States. In 2017, the U.S. saw a total of 346 mass shootings. A total of 67 mass shooting incidents have occurred up to April 22 this year. A mass shooting is where four or more people are shot and/or killed in a single incident, at the same general time and location, not including the shooter.
Gun crime in Australia fell sharply after strict gun controls were introduced in response to a mass shooting in 1996, when a lone gunman killed 35 people in Tasmania.
That prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.
Australia has banned all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and has a restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.
It would seem that using guns to stop gun violence which has been the NRAs solution to gun violence has completely failed. Common sense regulation is needed.
Couple of thoughts on various strands that came together yesterday. #1, Gina Haspel should not be confirmed as head of the CIA for her role in the torture program, even though she likely will be. #2, because John McCain came out against her confirmation, it was revealed that a top White House staffer said "who cares, he's dying anyway" which totally comports with how you'd imagine staffers in this White House would react. I have more problems with John McCain than most, even though I am grateful for things he has done in individual moments in his career. But this callousness in regards to someone dying of brain cancer is pretty, shall we say, deplorable.
That being said, since it seems unlikely to me that McCain is ever going to return to DC to actually fulfill the role of Senator from Arizona, wouldn't the more noble act be to retire and give the people of Arizona full representation?? I can understand taking weeks or even a few months off to deal with medical issues, but when it appears increasingly likely that there is no actual roadmap to returning to the job, doesn't it do more for everyone to just step away gracefully?? Isn't there more dignity in that than holding onto the seat until your last breath leaves your body?? This isn't meant to be callous, but being a Senator seems like it should be important enough to have someone doing it who can actually physically carry out the job.
I still feel bad about McCain's health. There aren't a lot of politicians who support campaign finance reform, much less those who have actually gotten legislation passed to that effect like McCain has, and we need as many as we can get. I hope he makes it--even if he retires soon after anyway and is no longer around to fight the fight, a man like him deserves a long life.
I still feel bad about McCain's health. There aren't a lot of politicians who support campaign finance reform, much less those who have actually gotten legislation passed to that effect like McCain has, and we need as many as we can get. I hope he makes it--even if he retires soon after anyway and is no longer around to fight the fight, a man like him deserves a long life.
My comment is not meant as a knock on him personally (even though I have a myriad of problems with him as I've said). It's just seems like being 1 of 100 US Senators requires a person who is healthy and can do the job. This applies to people in the very recent past like Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy as well, all of whom at a certain point were basically being wheeled into the chamber in clearly deteriorating health. I guess what I'm saying in the people you are representing are more important than going out on your shield and deserve someone who can fulfill the tasks of the job. These Senate seats don't have to be de-facto lifetime appointments, and probably shouldn't be. In this particular instance, McCain can adamantly OPPOSE Haspel from his home in Arizona, but when the vote comes in the coming weeks, he will likely not be there to actually cast a vote against her nomination. And this could conceivably be a closer vote than most. Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but I just don't see how clinging to the job just because of longevity and status serves anyone in the end. Him, his family, or his constituents. He'd still have his pension, his healthcare, his status as a towering figure over the last 25 or so years of American politics. I feel like this standard would apply in almost any other job.
And, looking back, before it was revealed he had brain cancer, I (and many others) remarked at the time how odd and jarring his performance at the James Comey Senate hearing was last year, and many people immediately concluded that something had to be wrong with him medically, which in fact turned out to be the case. I am certainly glad he stuck around to ensure a stake wasn't driven through the heart of Obamacare, but you can see where I am going with this. Even BEFORE the diagnosis in the earlier stages it was effecting his job, and I doubt much has improved in that capacity since. The treatment for this disease is no joke.
I have trouble putting myself in a conservative's thought bubble, because I feel most conservative issues don't turn on years of education. How much can education sway you on leaning pro/anti-abortion? Gun control? Immigration? Taxation? They are often, if not more, about feelings of fear, outrage, control, or loss than rational, educated research.
This means you have been buying into the misinformation about what conservatives think--I mean *real* conservatives, not those sound-byte-driven dullards who just want a catchy slogan to throw out on the campaign trail. You even equate "the conservative thought bubble" to something other than "rational, educated research", by which you mean that "rational, educated research" automatically arrives at a conclusion which is not the conservative one.
In the interest of being truthful, though, I am not really a conservative even though my opinions overlap theirs from time to time. I normally self-identify as Libertarian even though I refuse to join the actual political party, but if I were to define my politics by the negation of something I would classify myself as either "anti-Progressive" or "anti-Nanny State". What do Progressives typically desire? Universal health care, a government-guaranteed minimum income for all people (even people who are not citizens of the country in which they are living), government-guaranteed housing, government-guaranteed jobs, etc. Those things are not "bad", in and of themselves, but my opposition to that mode of political thought is *how* they wish to accomplish those goals.
Another way to look at what they want would be to ask "who provides your income?", to which the answer is "the government". Who provides your housing? The government. Who provides your health care? The government. In other words, the answer to most questions in the form "from whom do you receive x?" is "the government". What this means is that you, an average citizen, are *dependent* upon the government for your housing, you are dependent upon the government for your health care, you are dependent upon the government for your very livelihood. There is another time in life during which you are completely dependent upon other people in authority to provide for your every need--that time is called "childhood". What logical reason could an adult person ever have for *wanting* to become completely dependent, as if they were a child, upon the nameless, faceless government to provide for their every need? Without the government, you would be homeless, penniless, and left without hope or direction. How is that any better than unending indentured servitude whose only escape routes are a) complete surrender to The State or b) death? This is why I refer to that political philosophy as The Nanny State--those people *want* to revert to childhood and have someone else fulfill all their needs. It makes no sense.
hrm...that rant was not the original direction in which I wanted to go but once I found myself halfway through typing that wall of text I decided to see it through. *shrug*
*************
If people who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 are misogynists because they did not vote for a woman, then by applying the same logic are Senators who do not vote to confirm Ms. Haskel misogynists because they are not voting for a woman?
Democracy Now! is sometimes cute in its naivete. Their headline reads "If Gina Haspel Is Confirmed at CIA, the U.S. Would Be Giving Other Nations Green Light to Torture". erm...DN? I have some news for you--other nations *already* engage in torture. Those journalists cannot be that innocent. We *shouldn't* torture people but we have in the past, we are likely still doing so now from time to time, and we will do so again in the future--that is the reality of the dark underside of the intelligence community.
This means you have been buying into the misinformation about what conservatives think--I mean *real* conservatives, not those sound-byte-driven dullards who just want a catchy slogan to throw out on the campaign trail. You even equate "the conservative thought bubble" to something other than "rational, educated research", by which you mean that "rational, educated research" automatically arrives at a conclusion which is not the conservative one.
Oh, you start off so beautifully, correctly pointing out the inherent flaw in the argument.
Another way to look at what they want would be to ask "who provides your income?", to which the answer is "the government". Who provides your housing? The government. Who provides your health care? The government. In other words, the answer to most questions in the form "from whom do you receive x?" is "the government". What this means is that you, an average citizen, are *dependent* upon the government for your housing, you are dependent upon the government for your health care, you are dependent upon the government for your very livelihood. There is another time in life during which you are completely dependent upon other people in authority to provide for your every need--that time is called "childhood". What logical reason could an adult person ever have for *wanting* to become completely dependent, as if they were a child, upon the nameless, faceless government to provide for their every need? Without the government, you would be homeless, penniless, and left without hope or direction. How is that any better than unending indentured servitude whose only escape routes are a) complete surrender to The State or b) death? This is why I refer to that political philosophy as The Nanny State--those people *want* to revert to childhood and have someone else fulfill all their needs. It makes no sense.
...and then you beat the stuffing out of a progressive strawman.
Let's propose an experiment for the next couple of days. Instead of posts like 'progressives believe...' or 'conservatives think...' or 'libertarians envision...' you could, you know, ask the conservatives, progressives, and libertarians (and all of the other -ives and -ists and -ians) that post in this very thread.
I have trouble putting myself in a conservative's thought bubble, because I feel most conservative issues don't turn on years of education. How much can education sway you on leaning pro/anti-abortion? Gun control? Immigration? Taxation? They are often, if not more, about feelings of fear, outrage, control, or loss than rational, educated research.
This means you have been buying into the misinformation about what conservatives think--I mean *real* conservatives, not those sound-byte-driven dullards who just want a catchy slogan to throw out on the campaign trail. You even equate "the conservative thought bubble" to something other than "rational, educated research", by which you mean that "rational, educated research" automatically arrives at a conclusion which is not the conservative one.
In the interest of being truthful, though, I am not really a conservative even though my opinions overlap theirs from time to time. I normally self-identify as Libertarian even though I refuse to join the actual political party, but if I were to define my politics by the negation of something I would classify myself as either "anti-Progressive" or "anti-Nanny State". What do Progressives typically desire? Universal health care, a government-guaranteed minimum income for all people (even people who are not citizens of the country in which they are living), government-guaranteed housing, government-guaranteed jobs, etc. Those things are not "bad", in and of themselves, but my opposition to that mode of political thought is *how* they wish to accomplish those goals.
Another way to look at what they want would be to ask "who provides your income?", to which the answer is "the government". Who provides your housing? The government. Who provides your health care? The government. In other words, the answer to most questions in the form "from whom do you receive x?" is "the government". What this means is that you, an average citizen, are *dependent* upon the government for your housing, you are dependent upon the government for your health care, you are dependent upon the government for your very livelihood. There is another time in life during which you are completely dependent upon other people in authority to provide for your every need--that time is called "childhood". What logical reason could an adult person ever have for *wanting* to become completely dependent, as if they were a child, upon the nameless, faceless government to provide for their every need? Without the government, you would be homeless, penniless, and left without hope or direction. How is that any better than unending indentured servitude whose only escape routes are a) complete surrender to The State or b) death? This is why I refer to that political philosophy as The Nanny State--those people *want* to revert to childhood and have someone else fulfill all their needs. It makes no sense.
hrm...that rant was not the original direction in which I wanted to go but once I found myself halfway through typing that wall of text I decided to see it through. *shrug*
*************
If people who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 are misogynists because they did not vote for a woman, then by applying the same logic are Senators who do not vote to confirm Ms. Haskel misogynists because they are not voting for a woman?
Democracy Now! is sometimes cute in its naivete. Their headline reads "If Gina Haspel Is Confirmed at CIA, the U.S. Would Be Giving Other Nations Green Light to Torture". erm...DN? I have some news for you--other nations *already* engage in torture. Those journalists cannot be that innocent. We *shouldn't* torture people but we have in the past, we are likely still doing so now from time to time, and we will do so again in the future--that is the reality of the dark underside of the intelligence community.
Where does the government get the funds to pay for the doctors to offer free health care?
Where does the government get the funds to offer affordable housing for the population? (Let alone, affordable housing is actually a supply and demand thing not a government thing, unless you want the government to start dictating what builders should be prioritizing - which causes conflicts not just with them, but the citizens of a community - NIMBYism))
I’ll give you bureaucracy, as I myself have said I’d never work for the government, but if a government is passing legislation (such as sanctions against a country) they do need to employ people to enforce those rules.
The government gets the funds through taxation to pay for these things (yes yes print money but I already explained inflation and why it is bad probably 100 pages ago) and through the population that they offer these services too.
So I, paying taxes so a child can get a free heart transplant and the parents do not have to worry about money at an already stressful and emotional time of their life, I am for it.
If paying taxes mean a person can have a higher quality of life in affordable housing in my city then I am for paying for it.
If my money pays for teachers who educate the children of today, giving them the knowledge that they need to compentently enter the work force so they in turn can find this wheel, I am for it.
Or if my money is paid for health inspectors to check restaurant to make sure they are up to code and I can feel safe eating at that restaurant then I am for it.
Where conservative thinking comes in is where government oversteps their bounds of governing a society and increases taxation (costs) to the point where it is more hurtful to individuals than what they are imposing.
~~
What it does though, is it prevents the US from condemning such acts in the future. They will look hypocritical in doing so.
@CamDawg I think that was intentional. Targeting "liberalism" the same way @Quickblade targeted "conservatism". To show how arguments like that can easily go both ways.
Arizona doesn't want McCain to retire because they are scared the seat might turn blue so they are basically forcing him to hold the seat.
Last month the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature moved to try to make McCain’s seat not be on the November ballot if he leaves office and his seat be filled by appointment of the Republican govenor but that move failed I believe.
So Republicans don't want him to retire and do not want him to quit unless he dies. Of course he probably could quit but seemingly he also doesn't want to quit because Republican reasons.
...and then you beat the stuffing out of a progressive strawman.
A little reductio ad absurdum never hurt anyone. I know that no individual person actually holds the political philosophy I describe; my intent was to examine the thought process behind it. We have to give the Progressives credit, though, because they really do want to look out for "the little guy", which is where Liberals were decaes ago (think Woody Guthrie).
...and then you beat the stuffing out of a progressive strawman.
A little reductio ad absurdum never hurt anyone. I know that no individual person actually holds the political philosophy I describe; my intent was to examine the thought process behind it. We have to give the Progressives credit, though, because they really do want to look out for "the little guy", which is where Liberals were decaes ago (think Woody Guthrie).
Whatever their turn to more corporate interests that took place in the early '90s under Clinton, the Democrats still, by far, look out for the little guy more than Republicans do. Republicans had every chance to make their signature accomplishment of Trump's Presidency, the tax cut, work for the little guy, but they instead decided to hand over everything to the billionaire class. Turns out, most people aren't noticing even a smidgen of a difference in their paychecks. For the average American, the tax cut that came with Obama's stimulus package was FAR more noticeable.
There aren't a TON of Democrats who are what we would define as progressive, but they are the only party where they exist in any numbers at all among the two. And that is really the thing. A large part of the majority of the Democratic Party is wholly centrist in nature, trying to straddle the line to be sympathetic to businesses, corporations, and everyday people. A far cry from how the party is portrayed by the right, which is slightly to the left of Karl Marx.
When it comes down to it, the two biggest economic issues decided in modern politics are the role of taxes and healthcare. And there couldn't be a more stark difference when you look at how the votes line up in the past decade. The parties are not the same. Those who say they are the same are often trying to put themselves "above" typical partisan fights, but the partisan fights exist because there are real, tangible differences between the parties. Folks can come down on either side they want, or no side for that matter, but one of my pet peeves is when we pretend the differences aren't there at all. This was the attitude that got me to vote for Nader in 2000, and the aftermath was what made me decide I was never voting for a 3rd Party again.
I'm not seeing any difference from the tax cuts at all. Things seem more expensive.
Thanks Trump and Republicans for forcing the "middle class miracle" lie on us.
Well, to be honest about the tax thing, you won't notice until you fill out your taxes next year how much the difference will be. You should be seeing a little less withheld from your paycheck but the major difference will be whether the higher personal exemption works out in your favor. If you itemize every year you probably won't see much difference or you may even pay more. If you're like me and you can't itemize, you're probably going to like what you see next year...
I have trouble putting myself in a conservative's thought bubble, because I feel most conservative issues don't turn on years of education. How much can education sway you on leaning pro/anti-abortion? Gun control? Immigration? Taxation? They are often, if not more, about feelings of fear, outrage, control, or loss than rational, educated research.
This means you have been buying into the misinformation about what conservatives think--I mean *real* conservatives, not those sound-byte-driven dullards who just want a catchy slogan to throw out on the campaign trail. You even equate "the conservative thought bubble" to something other than "rational, educated research", by which you mean that "rational, educated research" automatically arrives at a conclusion which is not the conservative one.
In the interest of being truthful, though, I am not really a conservative even though my opinions overlap theirs from time to time. I normally self-identify as Libertarian even though I refuse to join the actual political party, but if I were to define my politics by the negation of something I would classify myself as either "anti-Progressive" or "anti-Nanny State". What do Progressives typically desire? Universal health care, a government-guaranteed minimum income for all people (even people who are not citizens of the country in which they are living), government-guaranteed housing, government-guaranteed jobs, etc. Those things are not "bad", in and of themselves, but my opposition to that mode of political thought is *how* they wish to accomplish those goals.
Another way to look at what they want would be to ask "who provides your income?", to which the answer is "the government". Who provides your housing? The government. Who provides your health care? The government. In other words, the answer to most questions in the form "from whom do you receive x?" is "the government". What this means is that you, an average citizen, are *dependent* upon the government for your housing, you are dependent upon the government for your health care, you are dependent upon the government for your very livelihood. There is another time in life during which you are completely dependent upon other people in authority to provide for your every need--that time is called "childhood". What logical reason could an adult person ever have for *wanting* to become completely dependent, as if they were a child, upon the nameless, faceless government to provide for their every need? Without the government, you would be homeless, penniless, and left without hope or direction. How is that any better than unending indentured servitude whose only escape routes are a) complete surrender to The State or b) death? This is why I refer to that political philosophy as The Nanny State--those people *want* to revert to childhood and have someone else fulfill all their needs. It makes no sense.
hrm...that rant was not the original direction in which I wanted to go but once I found myself halfway through typing that wall of text I decided to see it through. *shrug*
*************
If people who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 are misogynists because they did not vote for a woman, then by applying the same logic are Senators who do not vote to confirm Ms. Haskel misogynists because they are not voting for a woman?
Democracy Now! is sometimes cute in its naivete. Their headline reads "If Gina Haspel Is Confirmed at CIA, the U.S. Would Be Giving Other Nations Green Light to Torture". erm...DN? I have some news for you--other nations *already* engage in torture. Those journalists cannot be that innocent. We *shouldn't* torture people but we have in the past, we are likely still doing so now from time to time, and we will do so again in the future--that is the reality of the dark underside of the intelligence community.
Just kidding of course but I was really trying to come up with some way to respond to @Quickblade. You just nailed it on the head and saved me from having to come up with something clever. I just love how the left project themselves to be the owners of all wisdom and conservatives are the high-school dropouts who just guzzle beer, fire their guns at everything that twitches, fly the confederate flag from their pick-up trucks and read the Bible and Playboy in equal measure (assuming they can even read).
I just love how the left project themselves to be the owners of all wisdom and conservatives are the high-school dropouts who just guzzle beer, fire their guns at everything that twitches, fly the confederate flag from their pick-up trucks and read the Bible and Playboy in equal measure (assuming they can even read).
I'm a liberal and I hate that stuff! It's a dumb stereotype and it does nothing but alienate people. There's precious little reason to generalize about people, especially based on politics.
I'm not seeing any difference from the tax cuts at all. Things seem more expensive.
Thanks Trump and Republicans for forcing the "middle class miracle" lie on us.
Well, to be honest about the tax thing, you won't notice until you fill out your taxes next year how much the difference will be. You should be seeing a little less withheld from your paycheck but the major difference will be whether the higher personal exemption works out in your favor. If you itemize every year you probably won't see much difference or you may even pay more. If you're like me and you can't itemize, you're probably going to like what you see next year...
Fair enough, but if you have dependents, dependency exemptions go away IIRC.
If I recall the numbers correctly, a 1:1 or 2:2 taxpayer/dependent ratio winds up being a slight loss over pre-tax cut numbers, and if you have more dependents then it will rapidly go worse given the size of the personal/dependency exemptions.
So Trumps plan to lower drug prices, and I use the word plan loosely, seems to involve offering bribes (incentives) to pharmaceutical companies so they make even more money and also blaming every other country in the world that smartly pay less for drugs for not paying their fair share.
So corporate executives that make million dollar salaries and million dollar bonuses and stock options while maintaining a monopoly on the market over people's lives (literally). That's not the problem. The problem is we need to raise the prices for everyone else and then hope pharma companies have just enough billions of dollars of money that they might feel slightly less greedy and lower prices in the US just a little bit.
What kind of stupid is this? This is a serious problem and Trump's solution is so dumb that's its a joke.
@Quickblade Its actually not that difficult. But it starts with not generalizing about other people. You know, assuming that their stance is automatically un-educated, not based on fact, and relies only on fear. That was your foul. This thread has shown time and time again that we can have productive discussions with people on the opposite end of our political spectrum.
I'm not seeing any difference from the tax cuts at all. Things seem more expensive.
Thanks Trump and Republicans for forcing the "middle class miracle" lie on us.
Well, to be honest about the tax thing, you won't notice until you fill out your taxes next year how much the difference will be. You should be seeing a little less withheld from your paycheck but the major difference will be whether the higher personal exemption works out in your favor. If you itemize every year you probably won't see much difference or you may even pay more. If you're like me and you can't itemize, you're probably going to like what you see next year...
Fair enough, but if you have dependents, dependency exemptions go away IIRC.
If I recall the numbers correctly, a 1:1 or 2:2 taxpayer/dependent ratio winds up being a slight loss over pre-tax cut numbers, and if you have more dependents then it will rapidly go worse given the size of the personal/dependency exemptions.
F-it, I had a long post typed up here, but I deleted it.
I've concluded that this conversation is virtually impossible, both sides impossible to explain to the other.
So, how about that peace in the Middle East? It's lasted a real long time, hasn't it?
I can't remember the last time there actually WAS peace in the Middle East. That's probably because there hasn't been any real peace in my entire lifetime...
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) has announced he will support President Trump’s pick to lead the CIA, Gina Haspel, increasing her chances of being confirmed. He joins Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), who backed her earlier this week. Both Democrats are running for reelection this year in states carried by Trump in 2016.
Haspel was too much of a evil person with no qualms about torture for John McCain but these "Democrats" apparently are ok with her. To me, BS like this is why the Dem's lead on a generic ballot is disappearing - failure to take a stand. Failure to
Donnelly and Manchin are bringing the party down. Heck Manchin even voted against Obamacare didn't he? And he's voting for Trump's agenda more than 60% of the time. Why are we letting him pretend to be a Democrat? Is it because he doesn't say the racist things? I don't get it. He's more conservative than a lot of Republicans. Awful. Trump has been a complete sell out every interest big banks, big pharma, big wall street, millionaires, and billionaires. It brings the whole Democratic party down if there's no distinction between Trump's completely corrupt agenda and a Democrat.
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) has announced he will support President Trump’s pick to lead the CIA, Gina Haspel, increasing her chances of being confirmed. He joins Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), who backed her earlier this week. Both Democrats are running for reelection this year in states carried by Trump in 2016.
Haspel was too much of a evil person with no qualms about torture for John McCain but these "Democrats" apparently are ok with her. To me, BS like this is why the Dem's lead on a generic ballot is disappearing - failure to take a stand. Failure to
Donnelly and Manchin are bringing the party down. Heck Manchin even voted against Obamacare didn't he? And he's voting for Trump's agenda more than 60% of the time. Why are we letting him pretend to be a Democrat? Is it because he doesn't say the racist things? I don't get it. He's more conservative than a lot of Republicans. Awful. Trump has been a complete sell out every interest big banks, big pharma, big wall street, millionaires, and billionaires. It brings the whole Democratic party down if there's no distinction between Trump's completely corrupt agenda and a Democrat.
I don't know who you are going to find to replace him in a state that Trump won by almost 40 points. He didn't vote to repeal Obamacare, that I know, because they couldn't have afforded to have even one defection. West Virginia is the heart of Trump country, and frankly, before that, it was pretty close to be the heart of Bush country as well. Your choices in West Virginia, North Dakota, and Montana are having a Democrat who votes how you would prefer about 30-40% of the time, in which case that candidate has to walk a VERY fine line in overwhelming rural and conservative states, or you get a Republican who will never vote the way you prefer. Frankly, I have no idea why Senators like Heitkamp and Manchin take some of the votes they do, because I don't see where it benefits them, aside from simply being able to say they are an independent voice. I doubt the Gina Haspel nomination is flipping alot of votes in West Virginia, but I'm not doing internal polls that might tell me otherwise. Regardless, if someone can find a Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris-type who can compete in those states, well.....that candidate has not yet surfaced to my knowledge.
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) has announced he will support President Trump’s pick to lead the CIA, Gina Haspel, increasing her chances of being confirmed. He joins Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), who backed her earlier this week. Both Democrats are running for reelection this year in states carried by Trump in 2016.
Haspel was too much of a evil person with no qualms about torture for John McCain but these "Democrats" apparently are ok with her. To me, BS like this is why the Dem's lead on a generic ballot is disappearing - failure to take a stand. Failure to
Donnelly and Manchin are bringing the party down. Heck Manchin even voted against Obamacare didn't he? And he's voting for Trump's agenda more than 60% of the time. Why are we letting him pretend to be a Democrat? Is it because he doesn't say the racist things? I don't get it. He's more conservative than a lot of Republicans. Awful. Trump has been a complete sell out every interest big banks, big pharma, big wall street, millionaires, and billionaires. It brings the whole Democratic party down if there's no distinction between Trump's completely corrupt agenda and a Democrat.
I don't know who you are going to find to replace him in a state that Trump won by almost 40 points. He didn't vote to repeal Obamacare, that I know, because they couldn't have afforded to have even one defection. West Virginia is the heart of Trump country, and frankly, before that, it was pretty close to be the heart of Bush country as well. Your choices in West Virginia, North Dakota, and Montana are having a Democrat who votes how you would prefer about 30-40% of the time, in which case that candidate has to walk a VERY fine line in overwhelming rural and conservative states, or you get a Republican who will never vote the way you prefer. Frankly, I have no idea why Senators like Heitkamp and Manchin take some of the votes they do, because I don't see where it benefits them, aside from simply being able to say they are an independent voice. I doubt the Gina Haspel nomination is flipping alot of votes in West Virginia, but I'm not doing internal polls that might tell me otherwise. Regardless, if someone can find a Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris-type who can compete in those states, well.....that candidate has not yet surfaced to my knowledge.
Who cares if Trump won by 40 points or 100 points. Run as a Democrat. If they don't want Democratic values screw em let them be a typical red state. Enjoy your work requirements for food stamps, underpaid teachers, abortion restrictions, and underfunded social services because the corporations and and millionaires pay zero taxes. Once they inevitably want change from that crap offer them a REAL choice. Not a slightly less racist pro-corporate republican.
Voters wanted change, that's a big reason why they voted Trump. They still want change, give them what they want. Offering them a milquetoast Republican pretending to be a Democrat is a losing strategy.
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) has announced he will support President Trump’s pick to lead the CIA, Gina Haspel, increasing her chances of being confirmed. He joins Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), who backed her earlier this week. Both Democrats are running for reelection this year in states carried by Trump in 2016.
Haspel was too much of a evil person with no qualms about torture for John McCain but these "Democrats" apparently are ok with her. To me, BS like this is why the Dem's lead on a generic ballot is disappearing - failure to take a stand. Failure to
Donnelly and Manchin are bringing the party down. Heck Manchin even voted against Obamacare didn't he? And he's voting for Trump's agenda more than 60% of the time. Why are we letting him pretend to be a Democrat? Is it because he doesn't say the racist things? I don't get it. He's more conservative than a lot of Republicans. Awful. Trump has been a complete sell out every interest big banks, big pharma, big wall street, millionaires, and billionaires. It brings the whole Democratic party down if there's no distinction between Trump's completely corrupt agenda and a Democrat.
I don't know who you are going to find to replace him in a state that Trump won by almost 40 points. He didn't vote to repeal Obamacare, that I know, because they couldn't have afforded to have even one defection. West Virginia is the heart of Trump country, and frankly, before that, it was pretty close to be the heart of Bush country as well. Your choices in West Virginia, North Dakota, and Montana are having a Democrat who votes how you would prefer about 30-40% of the time, in which case that candidate has to walk a VERY fine line in overwhelming rural and conservative states, or you get a Republican who will never vote the way you prefer. Frankly, I have no idea why Senators like Heitkamp and Manchin take some of the votes they do, because I don't see where it benefits them, aside from simply being able to say they are an independent voice. I doubt the Gina Haspel nomination is flipping alot of votes in West Virginia, but I'm not doing internal polls that might tell me otherwise. Regardless, if someone can find a Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris-type who can compete in those states, well.....that candidate has not yet surfaced to my knowledge.
Who cares if Trump won by 40 points or 100 points. Run as a Democrat. If they don't want Democratic values screw em let them be a typical red state. Enjoy your work requirements for food stamps, underpaid teachers, abortion restrictions, and underfunded social services because the corporations and and millionaires pay zero taxes. Once they inevitably want change from that crap offer them a REAL choice. Not a slightly less racist pro-corporate republican.
Voters wanted change, that's a big reason why they voted Trump. They still want change, give them what they want. Offering them a milquetoast Republican pretending to be a Democrat is a losing strategy.
Is McCain calling out Trump being a 'milquetoast Republican' then?
I guess anybody who doesn't agree with their party's 'group-think' should just not run at all or run as independents (about the same thing as not running 99% of the time). Clearly there are only two ways of looking at things, the Democrat platform way or the Republican platform way. Any deviation of this should not be tolerated...
We can also look at PA-18, in which Connor Lamb was able to pick up a seat in another HEAVILY Republican district. That required he not run a campaign that would have no problem working in Seattle or San Francisco. Is he WAY more conservative on guns and a couple other issues than I would like?? Sure. Same with Doug Jones in Alabama. But in the Jones case, his moderate views were the only thing that prevented a child predator from getting a Senate seat, and by the skin of his teeth. Same thing in the Pennsylvania House race with Lamb. If you are going to win in districts or races that Republicans should be winning running away, you have to have someone who at least fits the district they are in. If nothing else, those seats being held by Democrats are a number in the caucus, and whoever has the larger caucus controls that chamber. Yeah, some of these people do not align with me like someone from a large metro area, but that is still better than getting NOTHING out of the Republican who by all rights should have held onto those seats. And even that is less important than the numbers they provide in the overall count in the House and Senate. I don't particularly care for Joe Manchin, or Heidi Heitkamp (who is one of the Senators from the State I live in). In a perfect world, I'd prefer someone else who could win run for her seat. She is too close to the oil industry and far to the right on guns. But that makes perfect sense, because most of North Dakota is a rural wasteland, and the Western part of the state is totally dependent on an oil boom to prop up it's economy. I'm not gonna get nearly everything I want out of her. But if someone tells me I can eat 3 or 4 days out of the week, or I can eat NONE of the days in the week, I'll take my food on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday rather than starve myself to death.
As I've mentioned before, though my vote for Nader in 2000 didn't mean anything in Minnesota, I quickly realized that about 500 people thinking just like me were the difference that ushered Bush into the White House. Not much different that the 70,000 or so voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin who I am more than sure stayed home rather than vote for Hillary. In the end, my reasoning for not voting for Gore was as stupid and juvenile as the fact that I had written my Senior research paper on music censorship, and Gore's wife Tipper had been the main force behind the PMRC. Essentially I was the left-wing version of those who voted for Trump because they think PC culture is out of control. I came to my senses within 48 hours. I'm sure it takes alot of people much longer.
The third party runs in this country are ultimately pointless. Tons of conservatives upset at Bush the Elder voted for Perot in 1992, and that (at least in part), got them Clinton, who they despised 10x as much. How many Bernie voters pulled the lever for Jill Stein, a candidate I am sure 99% of them knew nothing about, simply to spite Hillary, and ended up with Trump who is against nearly EVERYTHING Bernie Sanders stands for.Even the so-called "Independents" like Sanders and Angus King have to choose to caucus with one party or the other if they want any committee spots or power whatsoever.
Ultimately, for half the people voting, issues probably don't even matter. These are essentially nation-wide votes for Homecoming King and Queen. They are popularity contests. I honestly wonder if Democrats wouldn't be better off if they just ran someone like The Rock in 2020. Why the hell not at this point??
Schwarzenegger won governor for the Republicans in California and Franken made it to the Senate for Minnesota so you may be on to something there @jjstraka34.
Comments
Difference between the meaning of treaty in domestic US and international law. In international law a treaty is any agreement intended to have force in international law. The US domestic meaning of a treaty is much more specific, i.e. an agreement that has received the advice and consent of the Senate and ratification by the President.
Non-binding status of the Iran nuclear deal. The JCPOA was specifically set up as a political commitment rather than a binding international treaty - that was in order to allow Obama to enter into it without congressional approval. That of course meant that his successors were free to repudiate it (as has now been done). The argument about that is not whether repudiation was legally possible, but whether it sends the right international signals.
Contrasting views about the way the US enters into international agreements. The NY Times debate on this in 2015 included 3 articles from different perspectives. All are well-argued, so it's a good debate. I suppose I would summarize by saying that the US is notable internationally for the difficulty it has in entering into treaties. If it wishes to retain the historic constitutional system for such agreements then some streamlining of the Senate approval process is badly needed.
Consider that today Republicans confirmed a judge to a lifetime position with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ― a vacancy that Republicans prevented President Barack Obama from filling for six years.
Under Obama things that Republicans were trying to do they flipped and they were no longer trying to accomplish once Obama became President. I can't find the link this second but there's at least one example of a Republican congressman scuttling his own bill, why do that unless you just want the American people to fail because maybe Obama might get some credit or whatever. Republicans in congress intentionally undermined Obama and threatened Iran directly at the time.
Obama entered an agreement with some of our closest international allies. That should be better than Congress. We got everything we wanted - Iran stopped trying to make nuclear weapons and because of diplomacy there were ten independent international inspections that confirmed they were abiding by the treaty.
But Trump and his (chicken) hawk advisors: Bolton, Pompeo and Sean Hannity don't like Iran. What do they want? Iran wasn't making nukes, what do you want? Distraction? Regime change? Again? The last time we overthrew the democratically elect government of Iran things didn't end well and we are where we are today literally because of that.
Hrm, for example. As a liberal, say I choose to learn more about liberal policies. I learn about general renewables in elementary school. I do my own organic minifarming in high school. When I'm in college I'm taking up electrical engineering and building my own solar arrays for my house when I graduate. Meanwhile, I'm researching about fossil fuels while taking chemistry classes and disgusted to learn about annual environmental carbon budgets in the carbon cycle and how humanity is throwing that balance out the window.
Were I not college educated, I'd have been in the dark past "renewables = gud" and not have spent years having it driven into me about the "evils" of fossil fuels. (Which, while I think they had a use, we are at the technological point where its time to move past them as the primary driver of civilization's energy producer. I certainly can't ethically say its evil when western civilization has gotten where it is because of fossil fuels and while I still drive a gas-powered car.)
I actually had to try looking up what the most conservative majors are aside from "business". Interestingly, while it's easy to find the political leanings of a university, there doesn't seem to be much reports on the political leanings of each major. I did find an uncited page saying that insurance is the most conservative sector of business majors.
I have trouble putting myself in a conservative's thought bubble, because I feel most conservative issues don't turn on years of education. How much can education sway you on leaning pro/anti-abortion? Gun control? Immigration? Taxation? They are often, if not more, about feelings of fear, outrage, control, or loss than rational, educated research.
Progress takes thought and work to move forward past the status quo. The Founding Fathers, for their time, were incredibly liberal. These days, they look extremely conservative.
In 50 years, I expect we will consider this era much as we now consider the 1960s, a time of strife between conservative and liberal ideologies.
In America, it's a Tuesday. Since 1996 there have been literally thousands of mass shootings in the United States. In 2017, the U.S. saw a total of 346 mass shootings. A total of 67 mass shooting incidents have occurred up to April 22 this year. A mass shooting is where four or more people are shot and/or killed in a single incident, at the same general time and location, not including the shooter.
Gun crime in Australia fell sharply after strict gun controls were introduced in response to a mass shooting in 1996, when a lone gunman killed 35 people in Tasmania.
That prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.
Australia has banned all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and has a restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.
It would seem that using guns to stop gun violence which has been the NRAs solution to gun violence has completely failed. Common sense regulation is needed.
That being said, since it seems unlikely to me that McCain is ever going to return to DC to actually fulfill the role of Senator from Arizona, wouldn't the more noble act be to retire and give the people of Arizona full representation?? I can understand taking weeks or even a few months off to deal with medical issues, but when it appears increasingly likely that there is no actual roadmap to returning to the job, doesn't it do more for everyone to just step away gracefully?? Isn't there more dignity in that than holding onto the seat until your last breath leaves your body?? This isn't meant to be callous, but being a Senator seems like it should be important enough to have someone doing it who can actually physically carry out the job.
And, looking back, before it was revealed he had brain cancer, I (and many others) remarked at the time how odd and jarring his performance at the James Comey Senate hearing was last year, and many people immediately concluded that something had to be wrong with him medically, which in fact turned out to be the case. I am certainly glad he stuck around to ensure a stake wasn't driven through the heart of Obamacare, but you can see where I am going with this. Even BEFORE the diagnosis in the earlier stages it was effecting his job, and I doubt much has improved in that capacity since. The treatment for this disease is no joke.
In the interest of being truthful, though, I am not really a conservative even though my opinions overlap theirs from time to time. I normally self-identify as Libertarian even though I refuse to join the actual political party, but if I were to define my politics by the negation of something I would classify myself as either "anti-Progressive" or "anti-Nanny State". What do Progressives typically desire? Universal health care, a government-guaranteed minimum income for all people (even people who are not citizens of the country in which they are living), government-guaranteed housing, government-guaranteed jobs, etc. Those things are not "bad", in and of themselves, but my opposition to that mode of political thought is *how* they wish to accomplish those goals.
Another way to look at what they want would be to ask "who provides your income?", to which the answer is "the government". Who provides your housing? The government. Who provides your health care? The government. In other words, the answer to most questions in the form "from whom do you receive x?" is "the government". What this means is that you, an average citizen, are *dependent* upon the government for your housing, you are dependent upon the government for your health care, you are dependent upon the government for your very livelihood. There is another time in life during which you are completely dependent upon other people in authority to provide for your every need--that time is called "childhood". What logical reason could an adult person ever have for *wanting* to become completely dependent, as if they were a child, upon the nameless, faceless government to provide for their every need? Without the government, you would be homeless, penniless, and left without hope or direction. How is that any better than unending indentured servitude whose only escape routes are a) complete surrender to The State or b) death? This is why I refer to that political philosophy as The Nanny State--those people *want* to revert to childhood and have someone else fulfill all their needs. It makes no sense.
hrm...that rant was not the original direction in which I wanted to go but once I found myself halfway through typing that wall of text I decided to see it through. *shrug*
*************
If people who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 are misogynists because they did not vote for a woman, then by applying the same logic are Senators who do not vote to confirm Ms. Haskel misogynists because they are not voting for a woman?
Democracy Now! is sometimes cute in its naivete. Their headline reads "If Gina Haspel Is Confirmed at CIA, the U.S. Would Be Giving Other Nations Green Light to Torture". erm...DN? I have some news for you--other nations *already* engage in torture. Those journalists cannot be that innocent. We *shouldn't* torture people but we have in the past, we are likely still doing so now from time to time, and we will do so again in the future--that is the reality of the dark underside of the intelligence community.
Let's propose an experiment for the next couple of days. Instead of posts like 'progressives believe...' or 'conservatives think...' or 'libertarians envision...' you could, you know, ask the conservatives, progressives, and libertarians (and all of the other -ives and -ists and -ians) that post in this very thread.
Where does the government get the funds to offer affordable housing for the population? (Let alone, affordable housing is actually a supply and demand thing not a government thing, unless you want the government to start dictating what builders should be prioritizing - which causes conflicts not just with them, but the citizens of a community - NIMBYism))
I’ll give you bureaucracy, as I myself have said I’d never work for the government, but if a government is passing legislation (such as sanctions against a country) they do need to employ people to enforce those rules.
The government gets the funds through taxation to pay for these things (yes yes print money but I already explained inflation and why it is bad probably 100 pages ago) and through the population that they offer these services too.
So I, paying taxes so a child can get a free heart transplant and the parents do not have to worry about money at an already stressful and emotional time of their life, I am for it.
If paying taxes mean a person can have a higher quality of life in affordable housing in my city then I am for paying for it.
If my money pays for teachers who educate the children of today, giving them the knowledge that they need to compentently enter the work force so they in turn can find this wheel, I am for it.
Or if my money is paid for health inspectors to check restaurant to make sure they are up to code and I can feel safe eating at that restaurant then I am for it.
Where conservative thinking comes in is where government oversteps their bounds of governing a society and increases taxation (costs) to the point where it is more hurtful to individuals than what they are imposing.
~~
What it does though, is it prevents the US from condemning such acts in the future. They will look hypocritical in doing so.
Last month the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature moved to try to make McCain’s seat not be on the November ballot if he leaves office and his seat be filled by appointment of the Republican govenor but that move failed I believe.
So Republicans don't want him to retire and do not want him to quit unless he dies. Of course he probably could quit but seemingly he also doesn't want to quit because Republican reasons.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/arizona-senate-moves-to-change-rules-for-replacing-mccain/
There aren't a TON of Democrats who are what we would define as progressive, but they are the only party where they exist in any numbers at all among the two. And that is really the thing. A large part of the majority of the Democratic Party is wholly centrist in nature, trying to straddle the line to be sympathetic to businesses, corporations, and everyday people. A far cry from how the party is portrayed by the right, which is slightly to the left of Karl Marx.
When it comes down to it, the two biggest economic issues decided in modern politics are the role of taxes and healthcare. And there couldn't be a more stark difference when you look at how the votes line up in the past decade. The parties are not the same. Those who say they are the same are often trying to put themselves "above" typical partisan fights, but the partisan fights exist because there are real, tangible differences between the parties. Folks can come down on either side they want, or no side for that matter, but one of my pet peeves is when we pretend the differences aren't there at all. This was the attitude that got me to vote for Nader in 2000, and the aftermath was what made me decide I was never voting for a 3rd Party again.
Thanks Trump and Republicans for forcing the "middle class miracle" lie on us.
Just kidding of course but I was really trying to come up with some way to respond to @Quickblade. You just nailed it on the head and saved me from having to come up with something clever. I just love how the left project themselves to be the owners of all wisdom and conservatives are the high-school dropouts who just guzzle beer, fire their guns at everything that twitches, fly the confederate flag from their pick-up trucks and read the Bible and Playboy in equal measure (assuming they can even read).
If I recall the numbers correctly, a 1:1 or 2:2 taxpayer/dependent ratio winds up being a slight loss over pre-tax cut numbers, and if you have more dependents then it will rapidly go worse given the size of the personal/dependency exemptions.
@Mathsorcerer, @ThacoBell, @Balrog99
F-it, I had a long post typed up here, but I deleted it.
I've concluded that this conversation is virtually impossible, both sides impossible to explain to the other.
So, how about that peace in the Middle East? It's lasted a real long time, hasn't it?
So corporate executives that make million dollar salaries and million dollar bonuses and stock options while maintaining a monopoly on the market over people's lives (literally). That's not the problem. The problem is we need to raise the prices for everyone else and then hope pharma companies have just enough billions of dollars of money that they might feel slightly less greedy and lower prices in the US just a little bit.
What kind of stupid is this? This is a serious problem and Trump's solution is so dumb that's its a joke.
Haspel was too much of a evil person with no qualms about torture for John McCain but these "Democrats" apparently are ok with her. To me, BS like this is why the Dem's lead on a generic ballot is disappearing - failure to take a stand. Failure to
Donnelly and Manchin are bringing the party down. Heck Manchin even voted against Obamacare didn't he? And he's voting for Trump's agenda more than 60% of the time. Why are we letting him pretend to be a Democrat? Is it because he doesn't say the racist things? I don't get it. He's more conservative than a lot of Republicans. Awful. Trump has been a complete sell out every interest big banks, big pharma, big wall street, millionaires, and billionaires. It brings the whole Democratic party down if there's no distinction between Trump's completely corrupt agenda and a Democrat.
Voters wanted change, that's a big reason why they voted Trump. They still want change, give them what they want. Offering them a milquetoast Republican pretending to be a Democrat is a losing strategy.
I guess anybody who doesn't agree with their party's 'group-think' should just not run at all or run as independents (about the same thing as not running 99% of the time). Clearly there are only two ways of looking at things, the Democrat platform way or the Republican platform way. Any deviation of this should not be tolerated...
As I've mentioned before, though my vote for Nader in 2000 didn't mean anything in Minnesota, I quickly realized that about 500 people thinking just like me were the difference that ushered Bush into the White House. Not much different that the 70,000 or so voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin who I am more than sure stayed home rather than vote for Hillary. In the end, my reasoning for not voting for Gore was as stupid and juvenile as the fact that I had written my Senior research paper on music censorship, and Gore's wife Tipper had been the main force behind the PMRC. Essentially I was the left-wing version of those who voted for Trump because they think PC culture is out of control. I came to my senses within 48 hours. I'm sure it takes alot of people much longer.
The third party runs in this country are ultimately pointless. Tons of conservatives upset at Bush the Elder voted for Perot in 1992, and that (at least in part), got them Clinton, who they despised 10x as much. How many Bernie voters pulled the lever for Jill Stein, a candidate I am sure 99% of them knew nothing about, simply to spite Hillary, and ended up with Trump who is against nearly EVERYTHING Bernie Sanders stands for.Even the so-called "Independents" like Sanders and Angus King have to choose to caucus with one party or the other if they want any committee spots or power whatsoever.
Ultimately, for half the people voting, issues probably don't even matter. These are essentially nation-wide votes for Homecoming King and Queen. They are popularity contests. I honestly wonder if Democrats wouldn't be better off if they just ran someone like The Rock in 2020. Why the hell not at this point??