American Politics

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Escalion

Maybe it's because I'm from Europe, but no, no I don't.
The president is the president of every citizen, not of every individual piece of land the country is arbitrarily divided into.

Arguably the latter is pretty much exactly what the President is intended to be. You're making an assumption here that's not a given. Consider a different viewpoint; 50 separate States whose governments agree to collaborate on certain areas and set up a system - the federal government - in order to do so. With that viewpoint it's much more important that the President leads the 50 States rather than the citizens. As Selena said, the US is in many ways more comparable to the EU than to individual EU member states.

Originally Posted by Son_of_Shadows

You can't possibly compare peaceful protest with suggestions of armed rising. Nobody is obliged to roll over and accept the man's policies. Protest is a fuckin democratic right.

My intention wasn't to compare those things (apologies if I gave that impression) so much as to compare protests - which are, at their core, intended to influence a change - with Trumps earlier stated intention to peacefully contest the election results if they didn't go his way. Protest is part of the right to express your viewpoints and have them heard. So are elections. They had one. Clinton lost. No-one requires people to be happy about that, but stable democracy does require them to accept the result. Protests are a means of trying to force a change of something, and if the thing you're trying to change is the result of a free and fair election that is not ok by me.

Also I don't particularly view burning Trump effigies and smashing up shops and cars to be "peaceful" protests, but that's by the by.

[Escalion]

Originally Posted by Concept

Arguably the latter is pretty much exactly what the President is intended to be. You're making an assumption here that's not a given. Consider a different viewpoint; 50 separate States whose governments agree to collaborate on certain areas and set up a system - the federal government - in order to do so. With that viewpoint it's much more important that the President leads the 50 States rather than the citizens. As Selena said, the US is in many ways more comparable to the EU than to individual EU member states.

Even in that light the winner-takes-all system doesn't make sense though.

Than again, the entire US, and similarly the EU, system doesn't make any sense to me. There's so much broken in it, it's not even funny anymore. And it would be so easy to fix if people, or in case of the EU countries (we really need MORE Europe, not less), were just a bit more willing to work together instead of being so focused on themselves...

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by Escalion

I come from and live in a rural area myself, and I just can't understand why a system that would count my 1 rural vote for 4 city votes would be any good. Politicians can't and won't ignore rural and agricultural places when it comes to actual politics, and in the end it's the politics that matter and not the campaign.

Pretty much everyone is in agreement that is precisely because politicians have ignored rural, agricultural, and depressed areas and that has caused people to become angry that Trump was elected. A "1 vote is equal to another" policy sounds good on paper but frankly it doesn't work. It leads to an imbalance of power that is focused on cities and other major population centers; its why you can see most of a state's counties vote red but still end up going blue because the Democrat killed it in the cities. The thing with politics is you can't do anything until you're elected, and when it comes to getting elected its far preferable to prioritize the people who got you into office than the people you didn't, especially if you know they are the majority.

But at the end of the day, we can sit here and talk about how in Wyoming your vote counts the most and if you're in Florida it counts the least, but that's not really what decides elections. Florida is a key swing state because of its demographics and large delegate counts, similar to states such as Ohio. Meanwhile California never becomes a deciding factor despite having the largest number of electoral votes because it is very blue and very liberal as a whole. Meanwhile Wyoming is nowhere near as important for similar reasons, despite voters having the "strongest" votes.

Ultimately, I'm not so much defending the EC, as I do think we need other systems in place before we can actually get rid of the EC, but the critics of the EC as of late are not really making sound arguments.

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Escalion

Even in that light the winner-takes-all system doesn't make sense though.

If it's the winner-takes-all aspect you object to, would that not also be a issue if Clinton were declared President due to winning the popular vote by a margin of just 0.3 percentage points? What position/influence do you give the runners up? How close does it have to be?

This isn't intended as an attack/criticism, I'm genuinely curious. As long as a system has some kind of election where everyone gets to vote it can be considered democratic - I always find it fascinating to hear peoples ideas on how it should be handled from there because there's a lot of scope for different systems while still being essentially democratic.

[Mozz]

Interesting point from Arnold Kling:

I also think that those progressives who are predicting that the election will have dire consequences for women, gays, and people of color are making a tactical error. They are setting a very low bar for Mr. Trump and the Republicans. When four years from now we still have civil rights laws in place, mostly-legal abortion, and widely-legal gay marriage, these putative victim communities will be wondering what all the fuss was about.

[Princess Ana]

You could also probably argue that people were setting a very low bar for Clinton and the Democrats. As of right now, that statement doesn't actually mean anything other than to criticize for the sake of criticizing.

[Doppleganger]

The protests annoy me too because it wreaks of butthurt. They're happening in liberal kingdoms and are run by people who aren't used to be told no, or not having their way, since politics for the past 8 years have been running their way.

I felt the same toward the Tea Party, so this isn't a ideological bias. You lost so suck it up like adults.

Originally Posted by Blastoise

EDIT: Now that things have relatively settled down and Trump's cabinet is starting to take shape I want to see what everyone's thoughts on Trump's first hundred days might be like, since he inherited a Congress full of people who were entirely expecting him to be the Albatross that dragged them all down and is building a cabinet full of people who backed him because they had nothing to lose. About the only thing I'm willing to guarantee won't happen at this point is any serious prosecution of Clinton, since animals and proles go free and I suspect the Democrats aren't going to let her try and become the next Henry Clay to their detriment.

There's two approaches to that hundred days.

1. Trump gets nothing accomplished and talks a lot. This is basically what happened after Ted Cruz dropped out of the Republican Primary. There wasn't an obvious shift in his rhetoric or actions although he did back off his crazy initiatives.
2. Trump actually gets things done behind closed doors, like during his time as the head of The Trump Organization.

It's been widely accepted Trump is going to be signing some infrastructure initiatives. Political scientists are nearly unanimous in how that's a good thing for the current economy, and building things is what Trump knows best. It doesn't have to be The Wall, although I wouldn't be surprised if The Wall is actually a real thing.

Bush, after-all, built a wall too, but his was little more than chain-link fence. More symbolic than shielding.

Originally Posted by Escalion

Even in that light the winner-takes-all system doesn't make sense though.

Than again, the entire US, and similarly the EU, system doesn't make any sense to me. There's so much broken in it, it's not even funny anymore. And it would be so easy to fix if people, or in case of the EU countries (we really need MORE Europe, not less), were just a bit more willing to work together instead of being so focused on themselves...

Someone here said it already - the president doesn't really represent every single person. He represents all 50 states. The electoral college is something like the states electing a president, and Wyoming has statehood even with less people than New York. That's why it's given a voice, even if it isn't as loud and booming as NY.

This harkens back to the state rights thing Mozz, Talon and I were talking about earlier. The more modern edition of the US has, compared to its early history, seems to prefer federalism.

...

Is it just me or do I find it a bit odd when people refer to the US as an "old" Democracy? We've only been around for 240 years. The Tokugawa Shogunate ran for 250. Rome and Byzantium were around for 4,000. This is nothing. Even the constitutional monarchy of England has only been around for 800 something.

We're not Christmas Cakes yet!

Originally Posted by Emi

You could also probably argue that people were setting a very low bar for Clinton and the Democrats. As of right now, that statement doesn't actually mean anything other than to criticize for the sake of criticizing.

With Clinton, she had a long track record in politics so whatever bar was set for her was a good proxy for what she'd actually do.

With Trump, the people who greatly fear being marginalized by his government are assuming a worse case scenario. Refusal to negotiate with Trump can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy where those marginalized groups don't get a cut because of it.

I think the best approach for Trump's government right now is "cautiously optimistic". Doom and gloom leads to bad things.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Mozz

Interesting point from Arnold Kling:

How can you or anyone say that?

We have Mike Pence for VP. We have Donald who is going to put conservative supreme court judges in. We have a republican congress and senate. We have a good idea of who he is going to put in his cabinet, and they're all out of touch, and we know how they all feel on these issues. All of these individuals, possibly barring Trump himself, believe it is unconstitutional for gay marriage to be legal and want to see it overturned. Then you have Trump who went on and on and on about deportation, registering all Muslims in a database and monitoring them, and banning them from international travel. How can anyone meaningfully look at this shit and not think "Gee, that sure sounds like prejudice." And let's not forget Trump pandering to the right with his 'maybe we should consider jail-time for women who get abortions' comment, this on top of other misogynist statements like his infamous statement about how he can flaunt his power to harass women - grab them by the pussy. And we just elected that to the highest position in the country.

It's absurd. He walks around on stage parading an LGBTQ flag and saying how much he supports gay couples and will protect them, and then he picks Pence as his running mate.

These groups have real fucking reason to be afraid. I certainly hope he is right, but you're basically looking at a chessboard when you've only got pawns left protecting the king, and the opponent has everything still, and you're saying "They most likely won't be able to put me in checkmate, I'm sure once I move some pawns across the board and get some pieces back I'll be just fine."

[Mozz]

I would bet that there is at least a 95% chance that there will be no federal ban on gay marriage by the time Trump is out of office. I really don't think he will be spending political capital on that, but I understand your fears.

[Shuckle]

The electoral college system is in place so that a minority of the country can stop a President they don't want from taking power.

This is true of nearly every system of American government.

A minority of the Senate can block a SCOTUS justice from being appointed.

A minority of the House or Senate can stop a bill from even appearing on the floor to be voted on.

A single President can stop a bill from being passed.

A few justices can kick the ass of a President+Congress combo and declare their law illegitimate.

The entire structure of American government is based on this concept and I don't see any problem with electing a President who technically lost the popular vote.

It's hard to talk about this in terms of "how many people were reached" - technically more people wanted Hillary, but more different kinds of people wanted Trump. And that's pretty much what counted here. No matter where you go, you'll find someone who voted Trump, but it'll be a lot rarer to find people who voted Hillary unless you're sitting in a major population center.

[deoxys]

Trump: It's time to drain the swamp!

*Proceeds to fill cabinet with the most establishment of Republicans you could possibly imagine.*


I also like the part where he just deleted these tweets from when he mistakenly thought Romney lost with the popular vote in 2012.

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by deoxys

Trump: It's time to drain the swamp!

*Proceeds to fill cabinet with the most establishment of Republicans you could possibly imagine.*

*hisses*

I'm letting him have his 100 days though. It could be that the Republican Party just needs Trump as its wrangler. Doesn't mean I'm exactly happy about being wrong, but...

Plus, I hear Trump is violent and dangerous. Maybe he will punch some Republicans.

[Doppleganger]

Calling Trump's picks "the most establishment of Republicans you could possibly imagine" is only true if you suffer from prosopagnosia.

Let's start by pointing out the establishment doesn't exist anymore. The party underwent a schism with the Tea Party emergence and if there was any stump left, it was burned down, salted, and pissed into the ground by Trump.

The names we see are familiar ones from history, but they're infamous now for exiting the mainstream long past due to craziness.

[Snorby]

Yes Shuckle, so many different types of old uneducated poor white dudes turned out for Trump, while only a single brand of black/white/Asian/Hispanic/straight/gay/young
/old/rich/poor/educated/uneducated/men/women turned out for Hillary. Spot on there, bucko.

Anyway, can we, for the love of all things sacred, stop comparing the USA and the EU? They aren't very alike. States only have the rights the Constitution and the federal government allow them to have. They can't secede. They can't make foreign alliances on their own. They have LITERALLY NO SAY in federal legislation or actions. They can't have their own currency. They CERTAINLY aren't sovereign. States are much, much closer to provinces than nations.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Calling Trump's picks "the most establishment of Republicans you could possibly imagine" is only true if you suffer from prosopagnosia.

Let's start by pointing out the establishment doesn't exist anymore. The party underwent a schism with the Tea Party emergence and if there was any stump left, it was burned down, salted, and pissed into the ground by Trump.

The names we see are familiar ones from history, but they're infamous now for exiting the mainstream long past due to craziness.

Gingrich, Giuliani, Palin, and Christie. That's literally all I need to say.

Establishment as fuck.

Let the show begin.

[Concept]

Originally Posted by Snorby

Anyway, can we, for the love of all things sacred, stop comparing the USA and the EU? They aren't very alike. States only have the rights the Constitution and the federal government allow them to have. They can't secede. They can't make foreign alliances on their own. They have LITERALLY NO SAY in federal legislation or actions. They can't have their own currency. They CERTAINLY aren't sovereign. States are much, much closer to provinces than nations.

You have this arse-about-face. As per the tenth amendment;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

Which in turn harkens back to the original articles of confederation (basically the proto-constitution):

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

What powers the EU has vs its member states is more ad-hoc than the more formal US division of power (not that that's stopped the federal government from repeatedly and dramatically overstepping its legal bounds) but the parallels are there.

[Princess Ana]

Wait, Deo, are those confirmed and if so what are they?

[Escalion]

Originally Posted by Concept

If it's the winner-takes-all aspect you object to, would that not also be a issue if Clinton were declared President due to winning the popular vote by a margin of just 0.3 percentage points? What position/influence do you give the runners up? How close does it have to be?

This isn't intended as an attack/criticism, I'm genuinely curious. As long as a system has some kind of election where everyone gets to vote it can be considered democratic - I always find it fascinating to hear peoples ideas on how it should be handled from there because there's a lot of scope for different systems while still being essentially democratic.

Looking at it from a "President of States" angle rather than a "President of people" one, I can see a reason behind the Electoral Votes. However, the winner-takes-all way that's in place now in almost all states makes it theoretically possible to become president with less than 30% of all votes. That's ridiculous no matter in which way you look at it.

Within the current Electoral Votes system, simply split them between the candidates in every state according to the popular vote within that state. To give some examples for this past election:
In Texas Trump would get 20, Clinton 17, Johnson 1
In Vermont Clinton 2, Trump 1
In Montana Trump 2, Clinton 1
In California Clinton 34, Trump 18, Johnson 2, Stein 1
And if it's too close to call like Michigan: Trump 8, Clinton 8

I think in this way the difference between the power difference of vote between States doesn't matter so much anymore as every candidate gets to benefit from it equally on State level. Albeit smaller third-party candidates could only realistically win Electoral Votes in the big States, but that shouldn't matter much either (and the lack of a realistic chance for third-party candidates in an entirely different problem in and of itself).

By splitting the Electoral votes, voter turnout might actually increase too because people in traditionally Red or Blue States will at least feel like their vote will count. More Democrats will vote because they can actually win Electoral votes for their candidate, and more Republicans will vote because the result is not done and dusted before a single vote even has been cast. And in the end the democracy as a whole will win.

Splitting the Electoral votes will more closely represent the overall popular vote too, and winning by as you say 0.3%, there can only be one president (or prime-minister in my country) and the one with the most votes gets that position, regardless by how small a margin. That's just how it is sometimes. As for the loser, here we have a multiple-party system, and usually the runner-up in the election either becomes part of the cabinet, or if the party the represent declines or the front-person of that party doesn't want, they typically become the opposition leader. Something similar could be possible in the USA too.


That all said though, given how deeply divided the US population is, maybe moving to an actual multi-party system wouldn't be such a bad idea either. Than Bernie supporters no longer have to pretend to be okay with Clinton, and Tea Party nutties can do their own thing too as a completely separate party.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Emi

Wait, Deo, are those confirmed and if so what are they?

All-but confirmed. I will say the word on the street right now is he's going to throw out Christie after all, but Giuliani, Palin, Gingrich, most likely. Word is Gingrich is being tapped for SoS.

I will say it look like from what I've read he's tapping Peter Thiel for his tech adviser, which would be... probably not terrible? I don't know enough about the guy to know aside from the fact that he's the one who helped take down Gawker, so...

[Princess Ana]

ugggghghhhhhh that list gives me various forms of cancer. That looks less like a list of competent people and more like a list of potential kickbacks. Which, granted, everyone does.

Although Christie is going to be in legal trouble because of "Bridgegate" so.

[SoS]

Originally Posted by deoxys

Word is Gingrich is being tapped for SoS.

EXCUSE M-

Oh you mean Secretary of State carry on

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by deoxys

Gingrich, Giuliani, Palin, and Christie. That's literally all I need to say.

Originally Posted by deoxys

Establishment as fuck.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/...ablishment.htm

Originally Posted by US Conservatives

The Republican establishment, or more commonly among conservatives just “the establishment,” refers to the permanent political class and structure that makes up the Republican Party. The establishment tends to control the rules of the party system, party elections, and funding disbursements.

The establishment is typically viewed as more elitist, politically moderate, and out-of-touch with conservative voters.

Literally none of the people you cited meet this criteria, except on two points -

1. They've held elected office
2. They're "out-of-touch" with conservative voters

And even on #2, what that author is referring to is a McCain situation, where McCain held more moderate/liberal views at odds with conservative orthodoxy. So, the establishment tends to be more centre or even left-centre than the official ideology of the Republican Party.

The folks you listed are much further right. Palin drinks Lipton, not Kool Aid, at her tea parties. Giuliani is the face of Judge Dredd after he takes off his mask. Gringrich wishes Houghton Mifflin would replace history textbooks with his alt-histories.

None of these people were mainstream. They never made the rules and were in fact marginalized by the establishment. Trump burnt that to the ground.

[Talon87]

https://www.facebook.com/manstuff/vi...6689075365535/

[Stealthy]

Dopple's right, that Gingrich, Giuliani, and Palin have certainly departed being "establishment" in the conventional sense. Christie is iffy, in that it kinda dumped him more than the reverse. Sure, these are all career politicians. But they're not establishment like Jeb, Graham, McConnell, etc.

I think, more accurately, this is the setup of the new "establishment".

[Shuckle]

Originally Posted by Snorby

Yes Shuckle, so many different types of old uneducated poor white dudes turned out for Trump, while only a single brand of black/white/Asian/Hispanic/straight/gay/young
/old/rich/poor/educated/uneducated/men/women turned out for Hillary. Spot on there, bucko.

This is fair. I can't find a way to articulate the concept properly without resorting to language that other people have already tossed around.

Geographical region is a big part of it and I think we should all sort of recognize that even Democrats in my state care a lot about the ability of responsible gun owners to be able to safely and no-nonsense...ly? buy legal guns. Hunting is huge here.

Meanwhile even Republicans in Snorby's state are ready to fucking ban guns forever. (Which is why gun control should be a state issue and not something on the federal level except to regulate the passage of guns across state lines, but WHATEVER I GUESS.)

That's sort of what I was saying.

Anyway, can we, for the love of all things sacred, stop comparing the USA and the EU? They aren't very alike. States only have the rights the Constitution and the federal government allow them to have. They can't secede. They can't make foreign alliances on their own. They have LITERALLY NO SAY in federal legislation or actions. They can't have their own currency. They CERTAINLY aren't sovereign. States are much, much closer to provinces than nations.

Lol there is nowhere to begin here. Step back and reread what you just said.

Hint: The EU is derivative of the US federalist system.