Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you mean have people elect the Cabinet members, that'd be a horrible idea, mainly because a lot of people would have no clue as to who those people are.

That's only true because we don't have to elect them, and thus most people don't have to care. And again, given the recent election, any points about political apathy for the President vs. the Cabinet is probably already invalid.

[Baffler]

If you mean have people elect the Cabinet members, that'd be a horrible idea, mainly because a lot of people would have no clue as to who those people are.

That's only true because we don't have to elect them, and thus most people don't have to care. And again, given the recent election, any points about political apathy for the President vs. the Cabinet is probably already invalid.

It would make them more answerable to the people. But on the other hand, it would make them more answerable to the people. Do we really want the head of the Department of Justice, for example, to have to constantly prove to the voters that he isn't soft on crime?

[misko27]

A slightly better way might be to have two VPs, one your running mate and the other the opposition candidate (or their running mate if they refuse the position). Then the Prez and both VPs form a triumvirate and vote on all Prez matters. Also, put a rule in place as well that each of the triumvirate needs to side with each of the others a specified minimum amount of the time in votes, so that they are forced to play a compromise shell game rather than always voting down the opposition. That would ensure that the minor candidate wins 1/3 of presidential decision votes rather than 0%

I see this as counter-productive in one very important manner: the executive part of the executive branch. It's arguably the only branch that still does anything, and weakening it in that way purely to further... what? Make the President accountable to the votes? Not minimize the value of the people who voted against? The *point* of the President, to the extent that there is one, is that they act. They aren't supposed to decide things in the first place; the fact that they do is more a function of the weakness of Congress as an institution than of the Presidency. The fact of the matter is that Congress does a very good job of preventing the President of running amok by hamstringing it, and unless someone can provide to me a reason why creating more situations for gridlock, I think it's a silly idea. I mean what is your solution even: one-third of the time? So what, the two that agree with each other just pad out their dcisions with some specified quota of superficial decisions and get to do what they want anyway? Or what if one decides to simply not approve anything: then what?

You guys need to stop thinking about your proposals as if they would work, and start thinking about your proposals as if someone would twist them as much as they can get away with, because they will be.

If you mean have people elect the Cabinet members, that'd be a horrible idea, mainly because a lot of people would have no clue as to who those people are.

That's only true because we don't have to elect them, and thus most people don't have to care. And again, given the recent election, any points about political apathy for the President vs. the Cabinet is probably already invalid.

Try this argument then: do people make better decisions when they care about the issue a lot? Caring and knowing a lot about are not synonymous, as the recent debate on any number of issues illustrates.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you mean have people elect the Cabinet members, that'd be a horrible idea, mainly because a lot of people would have no clue as to who those people are.

That's only true because we don't have to elect them, and thus most people don't have to care. And again, given the recent election, any points about political apathy for the President vs. the Cabinet is probably already invalid.

It would make them more answerable to the people. But on the other hand, it would make them more answerable to the people. Do we really want the head of the Department of Justice, for example, to have to constantly prove to the voters that he isn't soft on crime?

I think the benefits outweigh the risks. Mainly though decentralization of executive power. Right now, the Presidency has a great deal of potential to get fucked up as the result of a single ballot question. Fucking that up then proceeds to fuck up every member of the cabinet, which then makes the entire executive rotten for a minimum of four years.

Neither the legislature nor the judiciary have the same risk, because they don't have one overpowering member who appoints all the others directly. No matter how screwed either of them get, there will always be some voices of reason remaining. The Presidency easily turns into an echo chamber, even one hostile to the outside world, as we saw strongly during the Bush years.

I also think that points about the voters are paradoxical. The main reason people don't vote is cynicism about voting. You have to give the voters a chance to do something meaningful or they have no reason to accept the urging that voting is important.

A much less difficult alternative would be to require the Presidential candidates to disclose their cabinet positions before the election, like with the veep.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I just have one question, apiks, and I don't mean to offend or anger or anything, but are you actually LGBT? Sometimes it's really easy to dismiss people's fears when their problems don't affect you personally.

Also, what do you mean by nitpicked information?

I don't recall saying I am LGBT. I'm a heterosexual white male. I am 1.5 on the Kinsey scale though so it's not like I'm averse to it. During my early teenage years when people usually find their identity and sexuality I did experiment a bit, but here I am, confident of my heterosexual orientation. I do have a lot of friends both online and offline that are LGBT.

By nitpicked information I mean that even though I haven't actually sourced anything to disprove you or argue with you, your maps sound like they were picked for the purpose while avoiding the fact that there might be other things in place to protect. That's just how it sounds to my sceptical mind though. Just how it sounds. I'm not making any claims here.

I just gave a quick run to your source for the maps and noticed this tidbit " In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow sexual orientation discrimination in employment because it is a form of sex discrimination." While your sources seem to indeed be in order, they hardly paint the entire picture. Law is a rather complicated field unfortunately.

...If this was to me, I'm curious how you took what I'm saying in the first place o_O There's...a lot more personal steps you're saying there for yourself and generalization towards others there, which is a point I'm addressing that gets in the way of discussion, instead of aiming to contend.

The "Of course" bit doesn't come off well either. And that last sentence makes me wonder what's the connection of that and what anyone in the past 15+ posts have even mentioned. (Who are you talking to and where are you getting this impression from? :/)

It was indeed towards you. You quoted me directly and used the words I said (fearmongering) to directly talk to me. What I understood you trying to tell me is to be more empathetic and open minded in regards to what the others in this thread are saying. It was also mentioned that I am attacking people instead of talking to them properly.

The reason my reply was directed to you is because you directed all that to me as the party responsible for causing angst to others by "attacking" them, rather than to all of us. I staunchly believe this is one of the reasons why Trump won. The Clinton side and supporters completely and utterly disregarded anything the Trump side was saying. Refusal to even hear them out due to them being "racists, fascists and misogynists". The people on that side also had worries. Why couldn't they be heard as well?

All of this being directed at me while having no justifiable reason other than me being on the less popular side in this thread and possibly the side you are on (as you said we can't assume those things with certainty), caused my lashing out to you. When you're going to preach, preach to everybody. And here I thought we weren't supposed to discriminate, heh.



And for those of you who are bulging with anger because I cannot possibly understand what you go through, do know this. I am a person with a disability and technically considered in the disability discrimination body and can be subject to ableism. Why do I say technically? Because I've never felt discriminated. People have insulted me for it. They have done things you guys would consider "discriminatory", they have denied me stuff because of it, I have been intimidated  and all the rest, but I have never really felt discriminated. At most disappointed. My lifetime is also significantly shortened thanks to this disability, but I still don't feel discriminated. I simply don't. The fact that it's very hard to notice my disability makes me all the more target of your so called "discrimination" as well. At least with a wheelchair you garner sympathies. No such luck here. I'm expected to function as a fully able bodied person, yet cannot and have received backlash because of it. And still I do not feel discriminated.

Sometimes I feel like people should just grow a pair. But I can't say that, can I? It would touch people's feelings too much. It's a weird thing. Those people both want to be treated as if their feelings are made out of porcelain, yet want to still retain all the usual rights of expression. It doesn't work that way. Especially not when debating something where feelings just get in the way. Which is also what I thought this treat was for. Discussion and debates on american political issues. Then again I didn't really have a choice in the thread, since this all started in the sad thread and got moved here.



Also regarding the de-liberalization of countries, is nationalism the antonym of liberalism? I'm sure there's a way to maintain national identity while building nation based on tolerance. One can't exactly consider the nationalists wrong per se. They just have their own worries and problems. That's completely normal and is in fact how the political system is supposed to work.

"Hey, you're at risk of losing all of your rights against discrimination based on your sexuality and the US might be falling back several decades in its gay-policies? Grow a fucking pair, dude!"

[Rockphed]

You guys need to stop thinking about your proposals as if they would work, and start thinking about your proposals as if someone would twist them as much as they can get away with, because they will be.

Frankly, people need to think a lot more about "would I be okay with my worst enemy having the power that I am proposing to give to my best friend?  Much of the angst over the rise of the orange-one is because so many of the things that people like were done by executive fiat rather than by passing laws through congress.  Obamacare can be destroyed by the budgetary process, instead of the slower and easier to block standard process, because it was passed as a budgetary measure.  All of Obama's executive orders can be nullified with a single stroke of a pen, because they were executive orders instead of laws.  The republicans can shove cabinet level appointments through regardless of the democrats' objections because the democrats did just that.

So, if your situation is going to go back 40 years because of the orange one, blame Obama for not getting those things codified into law when he had a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a majority in the house.

[smjjames]

The reason why Obama resorted to executive orders is because the Do-Nothing Congress frustrated him to no end. Same for the Democrats changing the votes needed to confirm Cabinet positions from 60 to 51.

Yes it all came back to bite the Dems in the ass, but all of that was in response to the Republicans obstructionism, because the Republicans decided to evolve a hate boner for Obama.

[Ghills]

You guys need to stop thinking about your proposals as if they would work, and start thinking about your proposals as if someone would twist them as much as they can get away with, because they will be.

Frankly, people need to think a lot more about "would I be okay with my worst enemy having the power that I am proposing to give to my best friend?  Much of the angst over the rise of the orange-one is because so many of the things that people like were done by executive fiat rather than by passing laws through congress.  Obamacare can be destroyed by the budgetary process, instead of the slower and easier to block standard process, because it was passed as a budgetary measure.  All of Obama's executive orders can be nullified with a single stroke of a pen, because they were executive orders instead of laws.  The republicans can shove cabinet level appointments through regardless of the democrats' objections because the democrats did just that.

So, if your situation is going to go back 40 years because of the orange one, blame Obama for not getting those things codified into law when he had a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a majority in the house.

This actually raises a very good point, but I'll also add that you also have to consider that the executive branch needs to have enough power to actually do things.  Disabling your worst enemy also means disabling your best friend. Instead, we should look to striking a balance between giving the president/executive branch enough power to still be able to do good with a different-party supreme court and congress, while not enough power that they could absolutely wreck everything if they go bad with a same-party supreme court and congress.

The fundamental issue with this idea is that at some point, all power ends up in one branch of government or another.  If the people in those branches don't choose to argue, there's really nothing to be done, because they can pass laws and make verdicts that overrule previous acts.

Republicans are about 5 states away from being able to pass constitutional amendments. That should be scary to anyone who disagrees with even a small part of Trump's agenda.  They really aren't stoppable until and unless they have massive infighting - which I doubt, career Republican politicians are showing their essential cowardice left, right and center - or unless we elect a more balanced Congress and state legislatures in the midterm elections.

[Tiruin]

"Hey, you're at risk of losing all of your rights against discrimination based on your sexuality and the US might be falling back several decades in its gay-policies? Grow a fucking pair, dude!"

That's not all or what he's saying or what he's even saying, and part of it comes from frustration. So *bop*. No, Dozebôm. Guidance is always better than authoritarian 'get over it' themed crude commentary. And miscommunication won't help that, even if reframing the idea may give a point of reference in a way.

Question on the small scale here (and that I lack time to browse the latest pages >_> Sorry!), I've read that the electoral colleges are the ones that 'vote in' the president and others at that level? But I've heard that Clinton 'conceded' so...that means Trump is officially president then? I don't get what's going on given the date and time and discussions happening between what's being mentioned. x_x

In December, the electoral college voters will formally cast the votes they were assigned during the election, but that's just procedure. Clinton conceding just means there's not going to be any (more) shit about contesting the election. People started calling Trump the President-elect after he passed 270 electoral votes on election night.

Thanks!

[Criptfeind]

So, if your situation is going to go back 40 years because of the orange one, blame Obama for not getting those things codified into law when he had a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a majority in the house.

As far as I'm aware, this was never. Unless I'm mistaken the the most power the democrats have had in government for 20 years was 111th Congress where they had both parts of congress with a not quite filibuster proof coalition in the Senate and the White House, a period of two years during which you're essentially saying that they should have solved every issue in the US that'd been addressed over the past eight years. I suppose, in a way, you're right, not trying to jam though more laws over this time probably turned out to be a mistake, although these were the first two years of Obamas presidency, I don't think he (I certainly didn't) expected as much obstructionism as we have learned is now the new normal.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Republicans are about 5 states away from being able to pass constitutional amendments. That should be scary to anyone who disagrees with even a small part of Trump's agenda.

ARCH-CONSERVATIVE GAME-OVER

REAGAN WILL BE GOD-EMPEROR

"Hey, you're at risk of losing all of your rights against discrimination based on your sexuality and the US might be falling back several decades in its gay-policies? Grow a fucking pair, dude!"

That's not all or what he's saying or what he's even saying, and part of it comes from frustration. So *bop*. No, Dozebôm. Guidance is always better than authoritarian 'get over it' themed crude commentary. And miscommunication won't help that, even if reframing the idea may give a point of reference in a way.

I'm frustrated too after talking with people who have actually said what I paraphrased. So I was perhaps too hasty to demonize him, sorry.

What is he saying anyway? That he's annoyed by the "I AM OFFENDED!" people? Yeah, those people are annoying.

(And how was I authoritarian?)

Just found this:
Trump asks 'Hamilton' cast who 'harassed' Mike Pence to apologize.

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

D-did Trump just ask for a "safe space"? Is this the real life?

Obviously, it's okay if it's Trump. (Is it just fantasy?)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

D-did Trump just ask for a "safe space"? Is this the real life?

As far as I'm concerned, the single greatest evidence in favor of the EM Drive is that by all accounts the only way 2016 could amp up even further is invalidating our entire conception of physics as a cascading misconception.

I'm not declaring 2016 over on January 1st, either. 2016 ends when it actually stops.

[smjjames]

Just found this:
Trump asks 'Hamilton' cast who 'harassed' Mike Pence to apologize.

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

D-did Trump just ask for a "safe space"? Is this the real life?

Didn't we have a discussion a while ago how the concept of 'safe space' was twisted to ridiculous ends? Could be he is confused by that. But yeah, it sounds to me like he's saying that the cast should stick to their lines and not interact with the audience at all. Or maybe he thought those were lines normally spoken, or maybe he thought that they shouldn't have criticized the 'guest' (Pence was as much of a guest as any of the other audience members who paid for a ticket) who knows what he's thinking.

[Ghills]

Just found this:
Trump asks 'Hamilton' cast who 'harassed' Mike Pence to apologize.

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

D-did Trump just ask for a "safe space"? Is this the real life?

Or is it just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide election
Can't escape electoral college reality

Side note: It's always hilarious when conservatives adopt liberal concepts they have previously derided.   In this case, it's especially amusingly hypocritical.

Pointing it out to them will only result in blathering offended nonsense, sadly.

[Xantalos]

Just found this:
Trump asks 'Hamilton' cast who 'harassed' Mike Pence to apologize.

The Theater must always be a safe and special place.The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!

D-did Trump just ask for a "safe space"? Is this the real life?

Funny enough they didn't even harass him, they asked people to stop booing him and basically just said 'yo dude please don't pass discriminatory laws we're kinda concerned about that right now and we hope our play inspired you to think differently pls'