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
Obviously, making it so that every vote is equal is a good thing - I can't see a reason to oppose scrapping the EC to achieve that goal.
My only issue is a superficial one at best. I just feel that the President of the United States should have the approval from a majority of States, irrespective of population, so long as the State remains the fundamental building block of the US legislative and governmental pyramid.
I suppose my preferred compromise would be an electoral system which operates via the following rules:
- Elections should be fought using preferential voting (to allow for more than two candidates)
- If a candidate wins over 52% of the popular vote, they are elected. (52% - no margin for error)
- Should no candidate cross the 52% threshold, the candidate in last place is eliminated and their votes redistributed according to preference.
- This process repeats until either one candidate gains 52% of the vote or only two candidates remain.
- If there are only two candidates, the winner is the candidate who has won the most states. To determine the winner for a given state the process above is used except for the last step where if only two candidates remain the winner is the candidate with the largest vote at that point.
I think this process at least respects the state based nature of the US, whilst achieving the goal of making all votes equal across the country.
On the subject of remittances, Trump doesn't really seem to understand what they are. Most remittance payments cannot be calculated (only estimated) because most is untracked (even from legal immigrants) because of the way money often gets sent. If you make a law against it, it drives the trackable remittances underground. Trump first has the problem of identifying it before he can stop it; he'll only capture a fraction of it.
Trump's second problem is that, while it'll hurt poor individuals living in Mexico, it's not really going to dent Mexico's economy - Mexico's economy is better than Trump thinks it is; good enough to absorb this issue, anyway.
On top of that, when he suggested this many months ago, Texas threw a fit. It turns out that the Texan economy is heavily dependent on Mexico, to the point where Mexico is their single biggest international trading partner. Remittances actually help grease the wheels of that relationship. Anything that hurts US-Mexico relations, disproportionately hurts Texas.
So, Trump's third issue is that this would hit certain local US economies (specifically, Texas) more than than it would hit the Mexican national economy. Trump may not know this, but both Mexico and Texas do.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Obama calls Republicans' Bluff: "If you can present a better Healthcare Plan, I will Publicly support Repealing Obamacare"
. They have to prove it works before he'd support it, however.
Ain't happening. Maybe if repealing Obamacare unleashes The Plague, and even then I'd expect said plague to first cause a complete implosion of living standards before it could conceivably drive the psychos in Congress into approving a better replacement.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWikileaks is threatening to collect dossiers on verified Twitter users,
which would include information on their financials, living situations, and families.
I'd been wondering how the new regime was planning to suppress organized dissent on social media. This looks a lot like that.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."So, Trump's third issue is that this would hit certain local US economies (specifically, Texas) more than than it would hit the Mexican national economy. Trump may not know this, but both Mexico and Texas do.
The dream of blue Texas lives!
And on ![]()
amzing how fast they go from self-styled cyberpunk protagonists to Big Brother Is Watching.
edited 6th Jan '17 4:32:29 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV![]()
![]()
Yeah, just try it Wiki Leaks. American's don't like having their lives hacked for Freedom of Speech (like when Sony was hacked by North Korea). Everyone would turn on you faster then you could say "Pizzagate".
I've got a question. There have, a couple of times, been as many as six presidents alive at one time (five or six former, one sitting). When Bush was inaugurated, (the last time there were six), I remember there being a lot of public fuss about the cost of maintaining the security for so many at once.
Trump's inauguration will bring the total back up to six again. Given the current climate and the current GOP hostility towards Clinton and Obama, is there anything they can do to cut off the usual system that exists for ex-presidents (security, access to sitting presidents when advice is needed, access to at least some degree of security briefing, etc.)?
I just have visions of them trying to do something to curb Obama post-office in ways other ex-presidents have never experienced (and thereby catching the Clintons at the same time).
edited 6th Jan '17 5:05:26 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Who wants to bet Trump is going to follow in his role model's footsteps and compile an enemy list and use American intelligence agencies to spy on political opponents?
I thought Hitler was his role model, and Nixon was just his friend.
![]()
As has been said and will no doubt be said countless times again, when the President does it, it's not illegal.
edited 6th Jan '17 5:06:02 PM by kkhohoho
If he does make good in his hints and turn to political activism, I've actually worried from time to time about Obama being arrested at some point after he leaves office. We will officially be living under authoritarian rule as of Jan. 20, and silencing such a powerful voice of dissent - and beacon of hope - would seem like a natural move for Trumputin.
Also, apparently Russian hackers have been trying to infiltrate the DNC as recently as five days ago.
It's open season on US cybersecurity now, and it's only going to get worse if things keep on going like they're going.
They hacked to get Benedict Trump elected in 2016. They can hack to get him re-elected in 2020.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
![]()
![]()
Actually, given his stock market behaviour recently, I'd expect his first choice would be business rivals. Political rivals would be second on the list.
To be honest, I'd be more worried (for the short-term) about what they're collecting off the Republican hacks - although everyone's publicly focussed on the DNC hacking, the US agencies have said the Republicans have been hacked as well, so my guess is that's still going on, too.
With the Republicans holding so much power and their hacks not reaching the public sphere, you need to worry about bribery and blackmail at the very highest levels of government (inevitably including the sitting president, too).
edited 6th Jan '17 5:10:39 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.![]()
![]()
![]()
He's pinning a pity letter from Nixon to the wall of the oval office and apparently Henry Kissinger is the only person who Trump will drop everything he's doing to talk to whenever he calls, and Tillerson as Secretary of State was also a suggestion of Kissinger's. He also apparently once took out a fool page add to criticize Ronald Reagan for having "weak" foreign policy compared to Nixon.
So yeah, I think Trump is a Nixon fanboy.
edited 6th Jan '17 5:14:13 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
Eh, not exactly. There's no doubt Trump is going to do his best to establish an authoritarian regime, but it's not like he can establish all of the laws and whatnot necessary for that in the blink of an eye. It's going to take time for to happen, and so at least for a while, we'll still be living in a democracy. (If a rather corrupt one.) The question is, just how long will it take for Trump to implement everything to make our democracy a thing of the past? But one thing's for certain; it's not going to happen overnight. And of course, We the People will do everything in our power to stave it off as long as possible.
edited 6th Jan '17 5:11:29 PM by kkhohoho
I never said it would happen overnight (although it still needs to be pointed out that authoritarian regimes can rise shockingly fast), so I'm not sure what it is in my post that you're contradicting. And the fact that it will take some indeterminate amount of time to complete the transition from democracy to autocracy provides no more comfort to me than the fact that it'll take at least a few decades for climate change to start ravaging human civilization.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."Also, keep in mind, an authoritarian state requires the cooperation of the local authorities. Like, if the D.C. police are randomly really useless at hunting down political targets but do their actual job just fine, what are the GOP even going to do about it?
The GOP literally can't lean on the really important cities to the level that they probably would want to. Like, New York City? It's way too important to the American economy to do anything to. Los Angeles? The same. D.C.? It's the place where the government is. Could you imaging the problems that D.C. could cause for the GOP if it's local government suddenly got really useless or really legalistic all of a sudden?
You're making the assumption that the GOP care what kind of harm is inflicted in their rise to power. They don't. If they cared about things like the economy, we wouldn't be here in the first place (and they wouldn't be chomping at the bit to repeal the ACA).
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
Yeah. I mean, honestly, I'm not sure if we're actually going to be an 'authoritarian state', at least in the way that Bluefish is describing. Corrupt, sure; a kleptocracy, a distinct possibility. But while I can't rule out the possibility of a true authoritarian or aristocratic regime out, (hence my acknowledgement of it with Bluefish,) I'm honestly not sure it's going to be one legally, if that makes any sense. More likely, we'd still have the delusion of democracy while actually having anything but. Here's hoping that We the People can keep some sense of it still around.
edited 6th Jan '17 5:48:33 PM by kkhohoho

I expect you all to sing God Save the Queen, with feeling, before you accept the Queen and the Kingdom of Canada as your liege Lords.
Hey, we'd be nicer feudal overlords than the Czar.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.