• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Eaglelord17 said:
There are democrat states with lots of room to gerrymander as well, both are wrong though. Generally speaking the Republicans benefit more from gerrymandering in the States than the Democrats (though both do benefit from it).

They should be trying to cut down on the corruption (which gerrymandering essentially is) not increase it. Why the voters tolerate it is beyond me.

As much as I detest Musk if he does get a third party going which actually tries to restore things to how they are supposed to be (i.e. no wars without congressional approval, cut down on corruption, hammer into the two party system, etc.) then they have a chance to move towards a better democracy. Right now they are sliding away from that.
Click to expand...
In what world do we think that the richest man in the world establishing and gaining lodgrment with a political party would be a net good for democracy, even that one?
 
Brad Sallows said:
Threats ought to first be serious if they're to be taken seriously.

The current brouhaha over gerrymandering exists mainly because Democrats have already collected most of what they can and Republicans have room to improve; so, Democrats are angry and in "how dare you do what we did" mode.
Click to expand...
That is about a revisionist a take on the Texas situation as is possible.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Sure. Sell that to centrist conservatives in the US.
Click to expand...
I dont need to sell anything. Its morally reprehensible to obviously gerrymander to gain more republican seats just prior to midterms in a non-census year, the year Texas does their redistricting. Its a gross power-play and undemocratic. Inb4 California, itd be gross for Newsom to do it too, but if the Republicans are going to cheat, the Democrats will too in response. There no both sides here, there's only one side raising the stakes unnecessarily. From this, the people and their democracy suffer.

Thank the good Lord for Elections Canada. Giving political control to electoral districting is giving the foxes the key to the hen house.
 
PrairieFella said:
I dont need to sell anything. Its morally reprehensible to obviously gerrymander to gain more republican seats just prior to midterms in a non-census year, the year Texas does their redistricting. Its a gross power-play and undemocratic. Inb4 California, itd be gross for Newsom to do it too, but if the Republicans are going to cheat, the Democrats will too in response. There no both sides here, there's only one side raising the stakes unnecessarily. From this, the people and their democracy suffer.

Thank the good Lord for Elections Canada. Giving political control to electoral districting is giving the foxes the key to the hen house.
Click to expand...
All true. Democrats have gerrymandered the hell out of most states they control already, particularly the big ones. They're bitching about Republicans doing more of what has already been done. There's nothing to "revise", so no "revisionist" takes. Remember that anti-MAGA Republican hero Kinzinger? Democrats took care to gerrymander his seat away when they had to lose one.
 
brihard said:
In what world do we think that the richest man in the world establishing and gaining lodgrment with a political party would be a net good for democracy, even that one?
Click to expand...
Putting a third option out there might change the game enough to try and force the other two to adapt.

Right now between the funding rules, voter suppression (via things like gerrymandering etc.), etc. the States has basically locked itself into a two party system. The only way it is likely to break out of that (unless out of nowhere one of those parties develops a spine and chooses to end the rules that benefit it to open up democracy), is by having a third party break into the mix.

How can a third party come into being? Either a huge grassroots movement, which is extremely unlikely due to how polarized their political sphere is (both sides tend to vote for the ‘least damaging’ one just to prevent the side they hate the most from getting in) or someone with the funds to transcend the issues which prevents another party from being created gets involved.

Musk could be that person (and I don’t even like the guy). Keep in mind it isn’t like the other parties don’t act in billionaire's interests already, the corruption is fairly obvious. It is just that adding a third option in the mix could shake things up enough to hopefully pull their democracy back towards its roots (proper divisions of power, etc.).
 
Brad Sallows said:
All true. Democrats have gerrymandered the hell out of most states they control already, particularly the big ones. They're bitching about Republicans doing more of what has already been done. There's nothing to "revise", so no "revisionist" takes. Remember that anti-MAGA Republican hero Kinzinger? Democrats took care to gerrymander his seat away when they had to lose one.
Click to expand...
Gerrymandering is used by all parties, in that you are correct, however, it is generally used after Census data, no prior.
Some states are more Gerrymander resistant than other, as they don't register political party affiliation (like Virginia) and one can only look at the various District voting precincts (which still does give a fair idea of what one can do for Redistricting).
The fact the State AG is in charge of the redistricting just ensures that it is a very partisan activity.
 
McG said:
US Ambassador to NATO seemingly suggesting that nations which break the peace & wield violence against neighbours can “earn” territory. We are back in the era of empires and wars of conquest such as what brought us the Seven Years War and the First World War.
Click to expand...
"Back in". When did we leave?

A reminder that whatever Trump and Putin talk about, they aren't "carving up" Ukraine. Ukraine has already been carved. The question is whether Putin can be induced to un-carve some of it.
 
FJAG said:
I think the argument is that we've entered into a post-Westphalian political structure quite some time ago and that basically, we Westerners, started the whole thing with our morale imperatives to meddle within countries that didn't meet our high ideals.

See e.g.



🍻
Click to expand...
Less the morale imperatives to meddle, but the lack of fortitude to see them through.
 
The federal relationship with DC is difficult to follow, but I also noticed that he plans to "change the statutes" in places like New York and Chicago to eliminate 'non-cash' bail. I didn't know he had the authority to change statutes, let alone state-level ones.

Perhaps there is some 'emergency' provisions in a federal law that his minions have uncovered. I'll betcha the crafters of the law granting the president wide 'national emergency' powers never envisioned it would be used like this.
 
Although SecDef is incompetent and in way over his head, his promotion of his pastor who has disturbing beliefs of women’s role in society and the separation of church and state is extremely troubling.

open.substack.com

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth promotes repealing women's right to vote

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who oversees about 3 million military service members and civilian employees, reposted a video last week advocating repealing the 19th Amendment, which guarantees women the right to vote.
open.substack.com open.substack.com
 
lenaitch said:
The federal relationship with DC is difficult to follow, but I also noticed that he plans to "change the statutes" in places like New York and Chicago to eliminate 'non-cash' bail. I didn't know he had the authority to change statutes, let alone state-level ones.

Perhaps there is some 'emergency' provisions in a federal law that his minions have uncovered. I'll betcha the crafters of the law granting the president wide 'national emergency' powers never envisioned it would be used like this.
Click to expand...
I don’t think any of the crafters of any law regarding the presidency expected the President to do what he has done.

He treats the courts like my company treats union grievances, let cases stack up so that by time they get around to them it’s years later and too late to do much about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top