The General US Politics Thread

My belief is that better broad representation on a Federation lines will help matters.

I believe, also, that the problem is the corruption in the system not the system itself.

Let the people vote in their state and not be disenfranchised. Add more states.

You're just saying words now.

Small state and rural are pretty much just euphemisms for "white people", no more, no less.

It's the same way that talk about urban areas having too much power are just euphemisms for "black people" (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) and (presumed Jewish) "liberal intellectuals".

Edit- This was in reply to Parable. Glad it didn't end up a page topper, but as it is, context not 100% clear.

Edit 2- Also, in reply to what I assume will be Charles' replies. Yes, of course, there are large numbers of rural African Americans. And I do agree that the issues with disenfranchisement have to do a lot with bad policies (i.e. voter suppression and gerrymandering) within "Red States", and that's an important thing to combat too, which wouldn't be solved just by getting rid of the Electoral College.

But, a big reason why those states are Red and disenfranchise people (besides just racism), is because the Electoral College makes it so pragmatically, Republican politicians only need to win white voters.

And of course, as mentioned by others, there are also large (white) rural populations in a lot of "Blue States" too. And I'd say that the Electoral College facilitates their interests being ignored too.

But I'm going to put it out there that African American political suppression is a way bigger issue than the essentially fictional idea of big city folk not caring about rural white people.

Do you know who doesn't care about rural white people? White Republicans in Red States who benefit from the Electoral College.

Edited by Hodor2 on Mar 29th 2019 at 4:02:13 AM

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Republican opposition to immigration is based on racism, not the loyalty to law-and-order they like to tout. It's just much harder to go after legal migration than it is to chase "illegals".

Closing the border lets them use the "crisis" to stem the flow of legal immigration while continuing their crackdown on border crossings. The desired end result is that there is no path into this country, legal or illegal, for people of a Hispanic ethnicity.

Huh?

Most agriculture-related laws are submitted by rural lawmakers. The Western US has seen disputes between farmers and cities over water rights. Having firearms for self-defense is a considerably more rational thing to do when you are in the middle of nowhere.

Maybe it's correct to say that a fair amount of the rural-urban divide is due to racial identity issues, but reducing it down to the latter is utter nonsense.

Does it really count as released when every page is solid black?

Ex-Nevada Assemblywoman Says Joe Biden Inappropriately Kissed Her

Welp, people were already saying they wouldn't be surprised if something like this came up.

Probably expecting something a lot worse to come out,it's still bad by all accounts though

"Small" in the sense of wanting to not be overlooked in representation usually means "small population" which is why it's important that the Senate has equal seats for all states. That small has come to be tied up with white and rural is a result of historical trends over time, but really should not be entirely synonymous with that. But then fundamentalist shouldn't be synonymous with religious zealot, either, but these things happen.

Texas attorney general Ken Paxton to investigate the city of San Antonio for banning Chick-fil-A from the city's international airport over the owner's anti-LGBT stances.

(one last time)

Could the Democrats subpoena Mueller's report to get it released?

It's only important to have equal seats for all states if you believe that geographical units are more important than the wishes of the actual population.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Mar 29th 2019 at 5:02:47 AM

It's almost like we have a bicameral Congress precisely to address that issue.

I think the House Democrats could, but you know, you could possibly google that yourself if you're getting frustrated by the lack of answer.

Edited by AceofSpades on Mar 29th 2019 at 6:27:53 AM

> but you know, you could possibly google that yourself if you're getting frustrated by the lack of answer.

I know I have already but i'm interested in comparing answers

That's pretty much a yes or no question, though. Either they can or they can't, not much to compare in that regard.

Unless what you want to ask is what we think will happen if they end up having to, because they've pretty much already said that they will.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/democrats-say-they-may-subpoena-mueller-report-if-its-not-delivered-by-tuesday-deadline-2019-03-29

I can see some merit in giving states, specifically, some representation. Going "they're just lines on a map" is a poor argument; that's what countries are, too, doesn't mean they don't matter.

Doesn't mean that representation has to be equal, though I can see understandable reasons for that too. Although, I feel like at this point we've run into the problem of neither chamber of Congress really being proportionate enough.

Edited by LSBK on Mar 29th 2019 at 8:01:35 AM

And it's almost like the Senate is dominant, which means this in no way addresses the issue.

No, it's not a poor argument.

It's very relevant when states being given representation is treated as more important than actual people, which is what has happened with the Senate since day 01.

I know why it's like that but that understanding doesn't make me view it as any less unjustified.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Mar 29th 2019 at 6:20:06 AM

Except I said nothing about ignoring people.

Yes, states are made up of people, but things that might be good for the state as a whole don't necessarily line up with everyone's specific interests because they're not monoliths.

In that way, I can understand the theoretical benefit of someone acting for the various interests of the state, and also, separately, having people focusing more on specific areas (representatives).

Whether it actually works that way now, or indeed, as ever actually worked that way, is a different discussion.

Senators, being elected, ARE supposed to represent the people. Of their state. That they don't is more often a problem with entrenched corruption and gerrymandering, and not the structure of the Senate or the House.

Like, you're saying "state representation" like they aren't supposed to be representing the people of the state they're from. Divide the population up however you like, but an elected representative represents that place, which is just a quicker way that's usually understood to mean the people of that place.

Each state has two senators, that means California (39.56 million) has the same amount of Senatorial representation as Alaska (737,438).

That's what I mean when I say they represent the states, not the people, the dominant chamber is skewed in favor of small states because it gives them the same representation as much more populace states. That's representative government all right, but it doesn't represent the people. It represents the states and is massively biased in favor of rural (white) states.

That is the problem I have with the Senate. It arbitrarily favors a small portion of the population who happen to often be insular, ignorant, and parochialist.

https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2019/03/29/day-799/

I think the geographical units are important. (Although I will happily admit that the current lines aren't always the best, but their not going anywhere.) Florida is not Maine is not Kansas is not California. They all need solutions that work for them that might not work in other places. Ideally, the house ensures that the people's voice is heard and is responsive to them with the whole being replaceable every two years. The Senate ensures that not only do a lot of people agree that it's the right move, but that the different areas agree as well. They are elected less frequently to prove more stability as the interests of the states shouldn't change as often as the interests of the people. That's how it should work in theory. However as they say "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice their not."

Edited by Soban on Mar 29th 2019 at 11:36:41 AM

And doing the opposite of that is the point of the House.

That's because senators weren't supposed to be elected by the people. The Constitution says the Senate is to be comprised of appointees made by the state governments. This is what it's supposed to mean when people say the Senate represents the states. It was supposed to be the government of those states, not the people at large.

The 17th Amendment changed that to make them directly elected by the people of the state during the Progressive Era to increase democratic participation and reduce cronyism. Now senators aren't beholden to the state government, which is probably better, but it's definitely not what the system was intended for.

I would argue it's better that way, however. Not only is more Democracy (almost) always a good thing, but if the Senate was beholden to the State and not the people of the State, a modern Senate would be forever owned by the Gerrymandering Republicans.