Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I mean, there's a long and well-documented history of Trump giving wealthy new yorkers every possible reason to hate his guts on a personal level. He's an embarrassment at best in their eyes.
I'm saying they can have whatever opinion they want on the guy but at the end of the day they're still supporting him because they expect him to be useful. He wasn't Wall Street's candidate but they love his policies right now because his policies are Wall Street-friendly.
And why wouldn't they be? Wall Street gave cash to Trump too. Not as much as they have to Hillary but they significantly funded Trump.
Yeah pretty much.
edited 22nd Apr '17 1:08:05 AM by MadSkillz
Reforming the US is very straightforward if you just realize it is an option. It takes one simple step: Start organizing an amendment to kill Citizens United. Institute spending limits on the canadian model. Heck, write those into the aforementioned amendment. Done. You do not need to legislate a shorter primary season or any other details - once politicians are on a finite budget, the campaign season will get shorter all by itself.
And this is doable, because approximately no voters at all like citizens united. And while it is in the interest of the plutocracy, it is really difficult to disguise the fact that any argument in favor of citizens united is an argument in favor of the state being the puppet of the rich. And a lot of individual politicans will buy into this, simply because fundraising is a circle of hell. No citizens united, and they no longer have to do it.
Not how SCOTUS appointments work. Corporate friendly Democrats do exist but there is no indication that they use a SCOTUS appointment in any different way than say Sanders would.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
![]()
I think there are three problems with that.
- There hasn't been an new amendment in recent years and the process is is so complicated and the enviroment so polarized that getting one in is impossible.
- There is potential that once the door is opened by the one amendment that people will try to make a mad dash to overturn these or other amendments. I think this paranoia makes people even more resistant to changing the constitution, regardless of the cause.
- Yes, the amendments can be overturned. Its the Bookends to the prohibition era in fact. (and I think there was another case resulting from the Civil Rights movement). Its rare, but it can be done, which I think lead to the paranoia about letting any new amendments in.
On a side note. Doesn't the UN have a higher authority over the sovereignty of the constitution.
edited 22nd Apr '17 1:40:39 AM by MorningStar1337
via WTF:
Sessions: Hawai'i is "only an island"
What's next? is he gonna claim that Gravity Is Only a Theory? (Hawai'i made a rebuttal to this BTW
)
In other news: Justice dept. attempts further crackdowns on sanctuaries
and Trump projects onto Iran, claiming that it hasn't lived up to the spirit of the agreement.
edited 22nd Apr '17 1:59:53 AM by MorningStar1337
![]()
![]()
![]()
Polarization does not matter here. It actually will help you get this passed, because the voters on both sides are convinced the other side is bought and paid for.
.. with some justification.
As for "Has not been done recently".. because noone has mounted an effort to do so with a cause that has broad appeal. Overturning citizens united would have that.
And as for worrying about a general dash for amendments.. you do realize that argument is utterly incompatible with your previous argument that it is not feasible? But in any case, I cannot actually think of any malicious changes to the document that would command the necessary backing in a way campaign finance reform would. If you have a specific worry, rather than just generic "what if" try and look up how broadly popular whatever you are worrying about actually is.
But in any case, the point is that the amendment process is a part of the US political system, and it is intended to allow you to alter aspects of the constitution that have become intolerable to the people. In this particular case, the ailment is that the republic is sinking into corruption. It is definitely possible to mount a single issue campaign unifying all creeds, ideologies and skin tones to put a stop to that, because anti-corruption campaigns are always popular.
And it is also a necessary change. Because Citizens united will kill the republic, and you wont get it overturned by replacing justices. Congress wont make it the litmus test for picking new judges in a million years.
Surgeon general dismissed, replaced by Trump administration
![]()
![]()
Add all second and third generation human rights
to the US constitutions, while we're at it.
Yeah.. that won't happen any time soon. The GOP would never stand for it and their supporters would just see it as communism or (((globalism))).
edited 22nd Apr '17 8:34:48 AM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
You don't need an amendment for that. Those human rights treaties note are already supreme us law as per the constitution. There are two things blocking them. RU Ds that make them meaningless and loopholes that SCOTUS reads into treaties (the non-self executing treaty idea).
US Law would change dramatically if just one administration (and senate) dropped the RU Ds to the International Bill of Human Rights.
edited 22nd Apr '17 9:05:56 AM by CenturyEye
Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives

I think you're confusing personal dislike with how they're going to respond to whatever his financial policies are in any given week. You can hate a person and still go along with whatever they're doing.