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
@Septimus Heap: Well, filibusters have been beaten before. For example, Texas Senate Bill 5, where Wendy Davis awesomely ran out the clock, but they just passed it in an emergency second session.
Unfortunately, a lot of modern Republican senators could run on spit and bile for years.
Edited by Ramidel on Feb 5th 2019 at 8:57:58 AM
Re: The reactions to my previous post
I know why it's difficult to pass policy despite it having the support of the majority of the population in practice... But that's exactly the point.
No amount of Right wing propaganda matters, because the fact is that the majority of people already support Medicare For All and the Right, through lies and misinformation, convincing parts of their base to be against it even more than they might already be doesn't really significantly change that.
If the majority of the population support a policy and the people who are supposed to represent them in the government refuse to allow it to be implemented, then you do not have a properly functioning democracy.
Angry gets shit done.
That’s not particularly relevant to this situation, especially when push comes to shove, we don’t if there will actually be majority support for single-payer Medicare for All.
It may very well be that disinformation regarding the particulars of the program, skittish moderates afraid of lossing their seats, or simply the fact that people don’t want their healthcare to change could kill it.
Mister Smith goes to Washington has a lot to answer for - the filibuster is, frankly, nuts. The Senate is already a deeply anti-majoritarian institution by design, that favors small states. Combined with the house of representatives, it means legislation has to count a majority of both states and people, changing that to a supermajority of states - which is what the filibuster in practice does just gets the US much worse governance - Consider, would you vote for a constitutional amendment to make "60 percent" the treshhold for getting legislation through congress? No? So blow it up already.
If people win majorities in both houses, they should get to pass legislation, and if they pass bad legislation, then come next election, that will have consequences.
A major reason people treat US politics as a consequence free team sport is that in large part it is! It doesnt matter who wins, because neither side can actually do anything. That is just dysfunctional.
Mind you, the EU does have super-majority requirements so it is not absolutely unworkable, but it also has a much more limited scope, viewed as a federal goverement, and an extremely consensus seeking political culture that means policies actually can have supermajorities backing them.
Edited by Izeinsummer on Feb 5th 2019 at 10:52:20 AM
If people win majorities in both houses, they should get to pass legislation, and if they pass bad legislation, then come next election, that will have consequences.
A major reason people treat US politics as a consequence free team sport is that in large part it is! It doesnt matter who wins, because neither side can actually do anything. That is just dysfunctional.
Well said!
The filibuster benefits people who want to uphold the status-quo far more then it does those who want to reform it. I'd much prefer a system where a majority could implement what they wanted, at least there if the populace doesn't like something they can vote out the people responsible.
Filibusters are a net-negative and I hope there is eventually calls to have it removed.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang'Cause erhm... Keep in mind that things like the abolishment of slavery in the US, Women's Suffrage and (with the Civil Rights act) true Black Suffrage didn't take so long to achieve because they didn't have majority support... They had majority support well before they were implemented and were, like so many things, blocked despite that majority support by a privileged minority with significant power derived from the status quo and therefore a vested interest in maintaining it.
And yeah, sure, the majority wasn't always on board with these things, but it still took a lot less time to gather majority support than it took to convince those empowered by the status quo that not acceding to the majority's wishes was going to end badly for them.
Even if there are periods where vulnerable minority groups might be disadvantaged by a majority who doesn't care about their issues, or actively opposes them, the reality is that 'everyone' is a diverse enough set that historically the only people who truly have cause to fear the 'tyranny of the majority' are the minority whose power that majority is going to diminish by taking it and sharing it with the minorities that don't have any power at all.
Edited by Robrecht on Feb 5th 2019 at 8:13:23 PM
Angry gets shit done.![]()
That. The Founding Fathers were afraid of "tyranny of the majority" because they built this country to be terribly undemocratic. They wanted to reserve electoral power for wealthy white men, and didn't want the vast quantity of people in the country who don't fall into that category to be able to take it from them.
"Tyranny of the Majority" is the kind of thing that kings and dictators fear, not democratic nations created of the people, by the people, and for the people. It tells you a lot about the mindset of the Founding Fathers that they found it to be such a concern.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 5th 2019 at 12:26:27 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.If I may....
Bullshit.
There's a very easy example of the tyranny of the majority. It's called the Confederacy. When the majority has a vested interest in oppressing or abusing a minority of its ranks then that is the tyranny of the majority.
Blacks, Native Americans, and many others know exactly what it is to have the majority of people have a vested interest in treating you as subhuman.
It's why the Bill of Rights theoretically exists (and is often ignored).
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Not just them. I see tyranny of the majority is invoked as a common boogeyman from far leftists for why Democracy Is Bad, because they believe it's a tool to enable false consciousness. In the case of a poorly educated society, tyranny of the majority can be dangerous. But you know, you can fix that by improving the quality of education, not by abolishing democracy.
Edited by AlleyOop on Feb 5th 2019 at 2:43:31 PM
Funny tidbit I saw on CNN today.
Recent poll came out showing that Pence has a approval/disapproval rating of 39%/40%. But that's not the big eye popper: the same poll also had 12% of respondents not know who the Vice President (and former Representative and Governor) even is by name.
If that isn't an outlier...damn.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.It's entirely possible for two people to vote to beat to death a third. I say that as someone who believes democracy is the best system ever and should be revered. However, it's funny how people deride "populism" and then say that mob rule is something only the rich and powerful fear.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.The Founding Fathers who attended the Constitutional Convention occupied a certain segment of society which was both dedicated to a stronger, more unified government, but were also much more socially conservative.
For every Franklin who wanted a Congress with no Senate, and Hamilton who wanted to abolish states entirely, you had darn near everyone else. More, for lack of a better term, politically progressive Founders like Sam Adams didn't go.
For that matter, more conservative Founders like Patrick Henry and Jefferson opposed it entirely, so make of that what you will.
Bullshit.
There's a very easy example of the tyranny of the majority. It's called the Confederacy. When the majority has a vested interest in oppressing or abusing a minority of its ranks then that is the tyranny of the majority.
Blacks, Native Americans, and many others know exactly what it is to have the majority of people have a vested interest in treating you as subhuman.
It's why the Bill of Rights theoretically exists (and is often ignored).
Very well said!
The Tyranny of The Majority is a very important concept and just because problematic actors have abused it does not mean that it's illegitimate, the problem with the Founders was not that they were worried about Tyranny of the Majority but that the minority they were concerned for was Wealthy Landed White Men and no-one else.
If the Founders had cared about racial, sexual, and gender minorities then our nation would be a much better place.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangBullshit.
There's a very easy example of the tyranny of the majority. It's called the Confederacy. When the majority has a vested interest in oppressing or abusing a minority of its ranks then that is the tyranny of the majority.
Blacks, Native Americans, and many others know exactly what it is to have the majority of people have a vested interest in treating you as subhuman.
It's why the Bill of Rights theoretically exists (and is often ignored).
The Confederacy who ragequit the nation because the actual majority of people, including the Northerners and the black people they were keeping as slaves, were turning on them?
Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 5th 2019 at 12:55:34 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I think that's not really a rebuttal because "the majority" depends greatly on what you're counting.
But for a very very large number of years, White Southerners used their position as the majority to oppress the minorities underneath them.
Hence the very word "minorities."
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Yes, it does. "The Majority" absolutely does depend on what you're counting. And that's kinda the point.
Historically speaking, wherever there has been cruelty and abuse of a people, there are typically far more slaves than slave-masters. "The Majority", the way you're using it here, would better be represented as "Tyranny of the Empowered".
Which is pretty much the problem of civil rights: empowered demographics using their disproportionate legal and political advantages to keep the people without said advantages disempowered. The 1% is only 1% for a reason.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 5th 2019 at 1:01:20 PM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

I just realized that the harmful "Welfare Queens" stereotype is probably a response to emancipation.
"Oh, blacks don't want to work, they want to be lazy all day," sounds exactly like an over-the-top racist response to slaves desiring freedom.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 5th 2019 at 10:31:21 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.