• 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

Brad Sallows said:
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
Click to expand...
LOL, not his best moment.
But to be fair, it was a joke. Do you think those on the Fox newscast thought what they were saying was a joke? That one woman at the end going on about Greenland looked like she was all set to storm the walls herself.
 
Czech_pivo said:
LOL, not his best moment.
But to be fair, it was a joke. Do you think those on the Fox newscast thought what they were saying was a joke? That one woman at the end going on about Greenland looked like she was all set to storm the walls herself.
Click to expand...
There's a spectrum from "joke" to "serious". Some who chime in just want a TV moment.
 
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...
Threats ought to be taken seriously if there is the means to follow through on them.

Gerrymandering has been done by both sides in the States for a while. The difference between now and historically is they used to pretend they weren’t just trying to rig the election (i.e. wait until census changes, etc.).

What blows my mind is instead of attempting to act in a non-partisan manner or at least pretending to they are just straight up stating they which to deny the voters proper democracy.

Things like this lead to civil wars as the more excluded the political landscape becomes the more likely someone is willing to try and completely break the system.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Gerrymandering has been done by both sides in the States for a while. The difference between now and historically is they used to pretend they weren’t just trying to rig the election (i.e. wait until census changes, etc.).
Click to expand...
That's not a difference worth anything. The only meaningful difference is that Republican-controlled states still have room to gerrymander some more. When Democrats in heavily gerrymandered "blue" states are openly criticizing Republicans without exhibiting any apparent sense of shame, they obviously need to be f*cked over hard to come to their senses (if indeed they ever can).

I've written before that I like corruption and slimey-but-legal right out where I can see it, not hidden by nice suits and good manners and civility and decorum blah blah blah. I don't distinguish between one and the other; to me, they are equal. The people of the past get no credit for their deceit; it's not a "norm" worth restoring. The sooner more people see how things really are, the more likely useful reform - under pressure from voters - becomes.

The "good people" and "distinterested experts" in charge have had decades to make changes that "practically everyone" thinks would be positive and righteous. It's taken the bulls in the china shop to effect any. That suggests the former have never really been "good" or "disinterested".
 
Brad Sallows said:
That's not a difference worth anything. The only meaningful difference is that Republican-controlled states still have room to gerrymander some more. When Democrats in heavily gerrymandered "blue" states are openly criticizing Republicans without exhibiting any apparent sense of shame, they obviously need to be f*cked over hard to come to their senses (if indeed they ever can).

I've written before that I like corruption and slimey-but-legal right out where I can see it, not hidden by nice suits and good manners and civility and decorum blah blah blah. I don't distinguish between one and the other; to me, they are equal. The people of the past get no credit for their deceit; it's not a "norm" worth restoring. The sooner more people see how things really are, the more likely useful reform - under pressure from voters - becomes.

The "good people" and "distinterested experts" in charge have had decades to make changes that "practically everyone" thinks would be positive and righteous. It's taken the bulls in the china shop to effect any. That suggests the former have never really been "good" or "disinterested".
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top