-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
I hate saying this but Joe Scarborough has actually been talking sense for the last few days. Called out Steve Bannon for being a fucking moron trying to take on the press and that it'll end badly for him going down this route. Also pointed out that a lot of this shit is distraction from the real policy decisions being made that people should be angry about.
Poodlestrike
Banned
He's not being a moron, he's being a monster. Reducing it to simple stupidity is just more normalization.
What the fuck. Even the other ones are too high.What a fucking joke.
It should be like approve + 40 though.
Anyway I'm wondering if we should bring back pork.
aspiegamer
Member
The baseline for "currently content with the status quo" is still relatively high after Obama. It'll take Trump's shit hitting the fan before that ~30% of the public starts to turn in bigger numbers. Our of those polls someone theorized that Quinn's wording of the question is what gave the different result; something about "approve his handling of the job" instead of "approving of the job."
Even if you want to average all that out to ~+3ish it's still ridiculously low for a new President.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Absolutely haram.
That is a good question. Trump is so crazy it probably won't even matter as much as it used to so why not, many could argue.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I think earmarks are one of those things where the OpticsTM are the biggest concern. They can be very useful overall and usually harmless at worst but the bad examples look really, really bad.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I laughed.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Well he did just "win" with 46% of the vote. I think that's where a lot of the "come on, give him a chance" sentiment really kicks in, people who don't want to feel stupid about the votes they just cast less than three months ago.
The fact that he's barely keeping even (at best, outside of Rasmussen's alternate fucking universe) with his vote total is pathetic and should be worrisome for him given how small his victory was. His baseline is the exact number of people who already voted for him - if Democrats put up a candidate who consolidates the Clinton vote and the third party vote, he's hosed for reelection should that be a thing.
And I don't think it's particularly likely he pushes that ceiling up, assuming he gets his way on anything. Cutting ten trillion dollars out of the budget? Massive recession. ACA repeal, with or without replacement, partial or full? Massive recession. Trade war with Mexico? Massive recession. Any combination of those? The YUGE Depression. And unlike previous recessions where you could argue about economic trends or cycles, these would make for a direct cause/effect. No one in their right mind would want to give him a second chance - still a depressingly high number but I think you would see just how low the Republican floor really is (probably something in the mid-30s).
That's just my feeling; won't say anything with certainty because the last election proved if nothing else just how uncertain everything is. But if it really is the economy, stupid, the only way Trump gets a second term is if things remain pretty good which depends entirely on Trump and the GOP's restraint from setting the country on fire with a blowtorch.
It seemed to work better than our current crap.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The only thing restraining Trump right now is the willingness of a few moderate Republicans to work with the Democrats because they are ideologically opposed to some of what Trump does, and you're suggesting giving him the power to give them electoral bribes?
Nope nope nope nopety nope.
Where are the moderate republicans even signaling they will say no to anything? Rand paul? Seems like imaginary hope that the world won't collapse. Besides, you mean pork doled out by Ryan and McConnell, not trump, right? What about ideological moderation in those two morons?
Only that isn't working. So far In Terms of actual votes, the moderate republicans may as well be ted Cruz. They voted for Tillerson.
Until I actually see one of them defy the president and vote contrary to the party, I don't think there's any point expecting any 'so called' moderates to do anything other than grovel and bend the knee.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
To date, voting to confirm cabinet appointments has been a norm. Only nine in history have not received confirmation (although some were withdrawn to avoid this). Most Democrats voted to confirm. It's not indicative of anything.
As are rule of thumb, pork barrel projects give the party elite more control over individual members. Right now, "the party elite" effectively means "Donald Trump". You need to make an exceptionally good case to persuade me that's a good idea, rather than Y2kev's "something needs to be done, this is something, let's do it".
From my perspective, I believe the party that won (however fucked the rules) should be able to govern and implement its agenda, as crazy as it is - because then they can be held to account by the electorate. The huge weakness in American politics is the lack of downside for just blocking the opposing party endlessly, which means party platforms aren't carried out and you end up with total gridlock. I think the filibuster is a dumb as hell concept that should only be useable in the most extrodinary of cases (if at all), and anything that weakens the filibuster and the ability of the minority to halt government is good.
Ive said it many times, I think the filibuster and the American system does the opposite of what it was intended to do - it doesn't produce compromise, it produces insane partisanship.
(Obviously, I'd rather replace the whole thing with a parliamentary system but there you go).
Ive said it many times, I think the filibuster and the American system does the opposite of what it was intended to do - it doesn't produce compromise, it produces insane partisanship.
(Obviously, I'd rather replace the whole thing with a parliamentary system but there you go).
thanks ill take a look
While I agree with most of this post, I vehemently disagree here. Most people don't bother to vote in any vote not for president. If the average person thought about these issues on a regular basis, the US would be a vastly different place.
We can argue this, but in the current climate there is no realistic way to reapportion the House, because it requires their consent.
There is a "legislature" with over a thousand people: China's National People's Congress. Setting aside the obvious "it's not a real legislature" since that is not the topic, the NPC (lol) has 2,987 people representing 1.37 billion people. Each person represents 458,654 people (more, since I rounded the population).
Even if it were an actual effective legislative body, you can't negotiate with practically 3000 other people. They meet in a freaking concert hall like this
You can't even see the dude you're opposing on the other side or something lol
It would be impossible to get anything done if even like 10% of the legislature wants to debate one bill. That's 300 people getting up to the mic to get their proper amount of time to talk and whatnot.
The side benefit is that more races mean we get the rich dudes to dump more money into elections, which is technically reinvestment in America since you can't exactly outsource campaigning. But it would probably also mean more money in politics.
I think we should have reapportionment, but I am not so sure about tagging it to the 30k population that Washington wanted, because even in the late 1700s, I don't think the founding fathers could comprehend an America with 300 million people.
The current US president is someone no one in the elite class wanted. Who has policies directly in contrast to their plans (spending a ton of money on a wall, tariffs, etc.) To give up at the gate is why democrats are on the ropes.
The fact that people in china of all places has a better per person representative count (by almost 2x!), should be an embarrassment to the US who prides itself in its democratic system.
I don't watch a lot of CSPAN but from what little I have watched, there is ZERO negotiation going in the main chamber. Most of the negotiation happens behind closed doors, in commitee, etc. Then when it comes to a vote a very small % of people come to make a speech and there is a vote.
could there be a filibuster? yes, but that feature already exists.
Again why are we focused on putting them in a building. put up a forum, let the congresssman debate on that and archive the posts for posterity.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Let me be the first to say that in principle, I agree with you that the majority party should be able to legislate as they please, and the filibuster should go whether we have a Republican or a Democratic government.
And then completely betray that principle and express my thankfulness that the filibuster is still in place right now so that the GOP can't completely destroy our government. As a sitting Democratic senator, I wouldn't vote to remove it under these circumstances. If McCain, Collins, Graham et al want to keep it, tough titties for Trump.
The next time Democrats hold everything though (Pres+Senate+House), away it goes.
Maybe keep it for SCOTUS picks just because that seems a little too significant to be left up to a simple majority. Bad legislation can be repealed, a bad justice is on the court for life.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Can we ditch the filibuster and instute an actual 60 vote requirement on stuff? Being able to force Republicans to actually put a vote on the record about, say, a supreme court nom seems useful.
OMG Trump saw this loon on tv this morning and got really excited and tweeted about it. Honestly I don't understand why CNN gave him airtime.
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/3787270
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/3787270
Yeah, I mean, my perspective is not motivated by my policy preferences. Losing should taste like a shit taco. But I probably would have been fine with it under first time obama too!
The government totally doesn't work as constituted. I blame (((globalists))).
You better be kidding here, just because I said to set aside the 'actual purpose' of the NPC doesn't mean that they aren't a rubber stamp for the Communist Party. The NPC doesn't do any actual negotiation at all, in public or in private. They're a legislative body for PR purposes. "Look at all the people being represented in 'democracy'!"
Have you not seen how 'debates' play out on the internet? In what world is that a reasonable substitute for face-to-face meetings?
You can't say what "small %" comes forward to make a speech, but the bigger the total amount of representatives, even that small percent turns into a horde of people.
I'm saying that tagging to 30k people is not a good idea with our current population number. Increasing the number of representatives should happen, but not with 1 representing 30k, because that was a calculation made in 1789, not a calculation of 2017. If you want to adhere to the original text so much, would you like to go full constitutionalist and deny everyone except white men the vote? Be reasonable and account for changes over time. Antrax suggested a possible method of determining representatives.
I thought you were thanking Al Gore as a joke but lol it's for real
metalslimer
Member
Wat
Got the Shakes
Member
Haha. This is absolutely brilliant.
There is a whole lot of stupid in the world when it comes to immigrants. People fail to realize that children who were born here from illegal parents are citizens, and that Trump's law could cause those children to be sent back to a country they don't know.
"But they're illeeeeeeeeguuuuuuuullllll!!!111!!!"
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154952192745763&id=80429805762
"But they're illeeeeeeeeguuuuuuuullllll!!!111!!!"
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10154952192745763&id=80429805762
balladofwindfishes
Member
I don't think that's correct. I don't believe he can deport people who have children (who are still minors) who are legal citizens of the United States.
Reading the comments on that link you posted, it's pretty obvious people use the term "illegals" to abstract away the fact that these are humans with families and lives. They don't even view them as human.
I don't know how china's system works, at least on paper they have better representation is my point there
Debates on the internet are the way they are because they are a) have no affect on anything b) usually anonymous.
debates on hypothetical SenateForumz are not anonymous and since they would be viewable by the normal public (non reps couldn't post however) would have consequences on the next election.
This wouldn't ban face to face meetings, hold them by skype or w.e. Does one rep in our current system meet all 434 of his fellow members to have vigarious in person debate? I highly doubt it. You still have parties like we do now, it would just be more varied of opinion.
white male only suffrage was repealed by amendment to the constitution. No reason to by hyperbolic. Apportionment afterwards has been decided by law, doesn't (apparently) require a constitutional amendment and instead of being decided by a % of the pop is a flat number. If we went to the roughly 1:60k that we had at the start of this country I think that would be great as well. So far the reasons not to do so have been logistics are hard (which i have argued can be solved by not putting them all in one building), getting the policy to be passed would be hard (I agree), and that there would be lots of debate for votes (which honestly i think of as a plus).
Posted this over in the Russian Cybersecurity news thread in OT.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=229190899&postcount=14
I assume this was common knowledge and I'm LTTP, but I had no idea before now about any of it... Robert & Rebekah Mercer's influence over Citizens United, Bannon, Cambridge Analytica, and thus ultimately this election.
It would not surprise me if part of their efforts toward breaking up "the Establishment" includes helping further Russia's interests in Europe.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=229190899&postcount=14
I assume this was common knowledge and I'm LTTP, but I had no idea before now about any of it... Robert & Rebekah Mercer's influence over Citizens United, Bannon, Cambridge Analytica, and thus ultimately this election.
It would not surprise me if part of their efforts toward breaking up "the Establishment" includes helping further Russia's interests in Europe.
Just saw this on Twitter. Jake Tapper is savage AF
https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/824740305148706818
https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/824740305148706818
See:
Nowadays lack of anonymity doesn't prevent people from doing stupid things.
Like the candidate the posted a screenshot with his porn open in another tab, the various officials around the country who have sad racist shit after Trump's election. They were unpunished. There's no actual consequence for their words, so internet forums of discussion by the Senate/House wouldn't be exempt.
The bottleneck wouldn't be representation in the House anyway, it would be the Senate.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Stupid people in my city want to axe us being a sanctuary city over 1% of our budget money being lost.
The mayor isn't convinced. She seems to want to leave it in place and just eat the 1% budget loss.
I'm not really even sure how many illegal immigrants make their way to western New York, though? That's a long journey from Central/South America and the climate is way different. Going from tropical/sub-tropical to temperate forest with dicy winters must be pretty jarring.
The mayor isn't convinced. She seems to want to leave it in place and just eat the 1% budget loss.
I'm not really even sure how many illegal immigrants make their way to western New York, though? That's a long journey from Central/South America and the climate is way different. Going from tropical/sub-tropical to temperate forest with dicy winters must be pretty jarring.
I have been arguing this entire time, that right now in the US it is extremely difficult to campaign for office because you need to reach 700k+ constituents. Which requires TV ads, radio ads, etc. This requires a potential competitor to have a ton of money. Even if the person is a completely terrible person, his party will not sponsor a competitor and if he won by enough votes, the opposition party won't fund a competitor either.
in a 30k sized constituency a middle class person can afford to compete because you don't need tv/radio/etc to reach enough people to win. So basically because I am a fool, I hope that increased competition would remove racists over time. I am sure that there would be places where you have virulent racists elected, but these people exist and would (hopefully) be marginalized.
Western New York? If immigrants were coming they'd come to NYC. What the hell are they even worried about out there other than a lot of snow? Illegal Canadians?
Do they think they're a major terrorist target too?
I'm not sure that debate is necessary for a legislative body to function. Like, how often do Senators reconsider a vote based on stuff other Senators say on the floor? My sense is that the stuff Congresspeople say in debate is primarily intended for an outside audience, and is about demonstrating the Congressperson's commitment rather than persuading anybody. The major political impact it can have is drumming up support for or opposition to something in the public - maybe Elizabeth Warren's yelling about Wall Street goes viral and then people start calling their own Congresspeople. So I'm not sure that "too big to have debates" is a problem for a legislature. They can work like they work now, where members' votes are instead informed by party leadership, lobbyists, constituents, and so on.
I would say it depends. I know that there have been debates in the House of Commons that have absolutely swung votes, and indeed brought down Prime Ministers. Geoffrey Howes speech to the House of Commons brought down Margaret Thatcher, and I know that in recent debates on gay marriage / mental health / losing a child that the emotional speeches by MPs affected by these issues has made other MPs change their vote.
balladofwindfishes
Member
When I was a kid, we'd often see the border patrol driving around, and my mom would always joke about how they were "rounding up the Canadians"
Haven't seen any of those vans around in years, though, likely because of the sanctuary city status.
Just seems pointless to have this big ordeal around here to what amounts to an insignificant amount of money for a "problem" that isn't really significant.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/miami-dade-mayor-sanctuary-crackdown/index.html
Didn't even have to check to see if the dude was an exiled cuban :/
Didn't even have to check to see if the dude was an exiled cuban :/
Why do Cubans hate other latinos?
When they just straight up lie up what they've said on record why not tell them to fuck off and get out of the studio? Seriously, can these people grow some balls?
If Trump gets his 20% tax on Mexican imports, these are the US household staples that will be hardest hit.
Code:
Value of US food imports from Mexico (2015)
Fresh vegetables $4.8 billion
Fresh fruit $4.3 billion
Wine and beer $2.7 billion
Snack foods $1.7 billion
Processed fruits and vegetables $1.4 billion
Data: US Trade Representative's OfficeZiltoidia 9
Member
I got kicked out of the Poligaf discord for some reason on election night. They just said "Bye bye" and bam. It happened around the time it was clear hillary was going to lose, I just thought they were cleaning house to get rid of all the new people because the night was over.
aspiegamer
Member
Never fear, the poorest of Americans won't feel the impacts! Tens of millions of them don't buy produce and/or don't live within traveling distance of a store that carries fresh produce! "Food deserts" can be a thing even in middle-class extremely white cities and neighborhoods and it's just downhill from there.
The government must be aware of this, which is why they'll find some way to justify cutting food stamps by a magical percentage of "the you don't buy fresh food tax" or some bullshit number a think tank somewhere spits out. "If they're not buying only the healthiest foods, why should the taxpayers be paying for it?" or something. Not understanding that so many of these people couldn't buy healthier foods even if they wanted to sounds like thing the GOP would do, right?
The government must be aware of this, which is why they'll find some way to justify cutting food stamps by a magical percentage of "the you don't buy fresh food tax" or some bullshit number a think tank somewhere spits out. "If they're not buying only the healthiest foods, why should the taxpayers be paying for it?" or something. Not understanding that so many of these people couldn't buy healthier foods even if they wanted to sounds like thing the GOP would do, right?
balladofwindfishes
Member
My local grocery store (Wegmans) has a little jingle they play every so often "Buy our avocados, they're from Meh-ee-ko! Meh-ee-ko! *jingle noises*"
Too bad they're going up 20% or more in price
Too bad they're going up 20% or more in price
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked