• Support For Trump Impeachment At Record High
    131 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52844922]Even though I'm a liberal, I definitely see the appeal of the Electoral College and I see the need to encourage Presidential Candidates to visit multiple states that might otherwise be neglected. But, yes, it definitely needs to be reworked at bare minimum if it didn't act as a failsafe in preventing people like Trump from getting into office.[/QUOTE] Without a doubt they should be working to get more people to agree with them, not worrying about which particular geographical areas they visit. Presidents should have ideas that resonate with or without visiting, and there is no need for states to be given more power than the people themselves.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52844666]Would you bring your car to some random dude on the street? Would you let your banker neighbor do surgery on you? Would you bring your gun to some dude who knows nothing about guns? No, you wouldn't. Because you're not an idiot. Having some form of qualifications testing for politicians running for office would improve the quality of our politicians. Lets put it this way: We've both bitched in the past that politicians know nothing about guns, and therefore create bullshit legislation about them. What if that wasn't true. What if your politician was properly educated and understood what statistics meant. What if they realized that gun control means nothing about nothing, and instead chose to attack the root cause of the issue (which they understand because they've consulted with other subject matter experts). You and I don't have to put up with bullshit, and everyone benefits. I mean if you're fine with "suburban Steve" making laws about guns when he's never seen one, then by all means, lets continue this dumpster fire. If you're fine with "lawyer Larry" who's super experienced in law, but hasn't ever touched a patient making laws about medical treatments, then by all means, go see lawyer larry for your next surgical procedure. And I know what you're thinking: Europe doesn't even have that, corn you're such a fascist cunt. True, but most countries in Europe don't have an absolute trash education system that forces teachers to be babysitters instead of teachers. It all comes down to A, B, or C, which one do you want.[/QUOTE] I wasn't talking about people being able to run for office, only people being allowed to vote. Because evidently people think the solution to preventing another authoritarian president from being voted in is to let the government control who gets to vote. The fucking irony. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;52844752]Yeah ok fine. Still, what about requirements on your right to run for public office? Yeah, which is why we're talking hypotheticals here. Any discussion on how to apply a semi-technocratic system to the current political climate would take more than a few dudes on a thread for a mod for a game thinking up stuff over coffee. It's always nice to go BAH INCONCEIVABLE instead of addressing points.[/QUOTE] Well hey, you were the one in the other thread trying to convince me that getting rid of one right won't set a precedent to get rid of other rights. And yet here you are advocating for voter suppression using "well guns and free speech are also regulated" as justification.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52844686]I think you totally missed Govna's point, as others have explained. There's a world of difference between "your views don't line up with mine so you shouldn't be allowed to vote" and "you're a total moron who's completely disconnected from reality and is completely ignorant of the actual facts so you shouldn't be allowed to vote because you're a danger to yourself and others". Ignorance is incredibly dangerous, whether it's from our politicians or our general populace. And it's also incredibly widespread as well, especially among the US populace.[/QUOTE] That's not to say that the [i]majority[/i] of Americans are stupid (they're not), but there's way too many who [i]are[/i] stupid and aren't called out for it. The statistics don't lie. One in three Americans cannot name a single branch of the government, and almost as many cannot list off one right that the First Amendment protects ([url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/15/public-ignorance-about-the-constitution/?utm_term=.b4dce94d152b]source[/url]). Likewise, about one in three reject the theory of evolution and believe in literal creationism ([url=http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/]source[/url]). Around half either deny the existence of climate change altogether or think that it's due to natural causes and not the result of human activity ([url=http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/]source[/url]). Somewhere between 35-40% oppose same-sex marriage/marriage equality ([url=http://images.politico.com/global/2015/02/13/hrc_marriage_equality_public_memo_215-4.html]source[/url]). Around 40% also think that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases ([url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/07/on-abortion-persistent-divides-between-and-within-the-two-parties-2/]source[/url]). And so on. If the problem isn't with these people believing in shit that's absolutely ridiculous and harmful, then it's with them supporting contradictory and counterproductive policies; [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-poll-spending/public-strongly-opposes-debt-ceiling-increase-reuters-ipsos-idUSTRE70B38620110112]look no further than their attitudes towards the debt ceiling, where we need cutbacks, etc.[/url]-- where it becomes clear that they have no idea what they're doing. When you consider these facts, again, it really is no wonder we're in the mess that we are today. We've got a president who acts like a petulant manchild which a startlingly high number of people don't support impeaching, even when he clearly needs to be impeached for his behavior and his administration's corruption (I think he'll be impeached regardless at this point, since it seems like everything is finally unraveling thanks to Mueller's investigation, but never mind). We've got a vice-president who thinks that it's fine to outlaw same-sex marriage because it goes against "God's law" and that conversion therapy techniques which border on torture are tolerable. We've got a lawyer running the EPA who denies the existence of climate change, spews anti-environmental rhetoric, and has been pushing for deregulation for years for the sake of economics; Pruitt's doing what he can to dismantle the entire agency from the inside. We've got lawyers and clerks sitting on congressional science and technology committees who say they believe NASA is leading an environmentalist taxation conspiracy and deserves to have its funding cut, who oppose net neutrality and don't have a clue how the Internet actually works, etc. We've had fracking lobbyists push for deregulation and claim that there's no evidence it contaminates groundwater or has any harmful consequences. And so on, without covering all the dumb shit numerous senators and representatives support and say. Meanwhile, these people's supporters (and there's a lot of them) cheer them on and keep voting them and other candidates who are just like them in. I don't understand how somebody can examine all this and think that everything is fine. Recent years should have been a lesson in just how dangerously easy it is for birthright democracies to flirt with self-destruction. Historically, they have a bad track record for imploding. If the issue isn't the people themselves tearing it apart because they don't know any better, then it's been wannabe dictators and strongmen coming along to capitalize on the situation and delivering the coup de grace themselves. Worse still is when it's been a combination of both.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52843804]having a single man in charge of half a continent of a third of a billion people probably isn't the best of ideas you talk about the original design of the USA - but the original government of the USA was a republic meant for a few million people on the east coast. Now the same system of government exists for hundreds of millions of people and it stretches from Hawaii to Maine and Florida to Alaska[/QUOTE] He isn't supposed to be in charge. He is our chief diplomat. He is the unified front we present to the outside world to make peace and engage in trade talks. He serves as our face outwardly, and is given just enough authority to do so. He is also the leader of our military. This furthers the power he wields in diplomatic talks, and, more importantly, makes a military coup more difficult. He is the single point of connection that allows the alliance of states to produce a unified outward front and field a unified military force. Our constitution was pretty straightforward on that front. He really isn't supposed to have much power. The decisions are to be made by congress, which also has an interesting twist. The people weren't supposed to elect senators. Basically state governments were supposed to select two senators and send them off. The people were in turn represented in the house of representatives. All legislation has to pass both houses. The House of Representatives is the people's say. They get a person who is in the federal government who pushes their interests. The Senate is there to avoid mob rule. They are supposed to be the educated veteran politicians who are disconnected from the people enough that they can make the hard decisions. Following major events that produce knee jerk reactions, they are supposed to be the voice of reason. Meanwhile they are prevented from gaining too much power by the house of reps, who can shoot down any bullshit they try. Which brings us to why this matters: Currently most of the people on this forum cannot name their house rep off the top of their head. The country was designed for you to ONLY need to worry about who your house rep was. All you would care about was that one person. Instead, everyone cares about the President and largely ignores the rep. Which is a large part of why congress sucks such a massive dick that it can't get anything done, but also has a ridiculously low turnover. Nobody is paying attention to the branch of the government that matters most. This system ultimately meant two things 1) The people had a say, and the ability to shut down any legislation they wanted without the government descending into mob rule. 2) Legislation was difficult as fuck to pass, thus making any power over a single branch effectively worthless. It feels counter-intuitive, but it was a brilliant plan with proper checks and balances that was designed to allow even the uneducated to have their say in government, but not allow them to completely steer the ship into turbulent waters. Donald Trump is literally the reason we weren't supposed to elect the president. He is the physical embodiment of why mob rule is dangerous.
I just wanna point out the literacy and political aptitude tests would make the eligible voting demographic make a hard turn right by disenfranchising poor black and latino communities with lower literacy rates. This will happen no matter how "fair and unbiased" you make those tests So I guess if you wanna artifically prop up the far right then thats a fine way to do so.
Intelligent and well-educated people can fall into cult-like thinking just as easy as the ignorant.
[QUOTE=Amber902;52845196]I just wanna point out the literacy and political aptitude tests would make the eligible voting demographic make a hard turn right by disenfranchising poor black and latino communities with lower literacy rates. This will happen no matter how "fair and unbiased" you make those tests So I guess if you wanna artifically prop up the far right then thats a fine way to do so.[/QUOTE] We need to call everyone out on this. Look just because we got arguably one of the absolute worst presidents in modern history for one election cycle, doesn't mean you get to take away people's rights: [U]especially[/U] the right to take part in elections. Trump didn't even win the popular vote, yet somehow people think the best course of action is to punish everyone by making the right to vote a privilege? BULLSHIT! This is holier than thou "I don't think the commoners should have a voice in politics" elitist BULLSHIT! People didn't protest, suffer, and die for the right of equal representation just to have it nullified by some ignorant self entitled little shits who want the government to decide who gets to have rights and who doesn't. This total complacency of the government is extremely dangerous. I mean it's literally advocating to turn groups of people into second class citizens. I don't care what kind of statistical nonsense you come up with or how misinformed the general public is. The right to vote is a crucial right of the citizenry. Listen carefully: VOTER SUPPRESSION IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I should not have to be pointing this out to anyone, but the limits of human stupidity continue to exceed my expectations. Never have I read anything so abjectly disgusting and horrifying on this forum. You should all be ashamed. I mean it's hard to be worse the fucking GOP when it comes to voters rights but congratulations, you guys somehow outdid them.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52845519]We need to call everyone out on this. Look just because we got arguably one of the absolute worst presidents in modern history for one election cycle, doesn't mean you get to take away people's rights: [U]especially[/U] the right to take part in elections. Trump didn't even win the popular vote, yet somehow people think the best course of action is to punish everyone by making the right to vote a privilege? BULLSHIT! This is holier than thou "I don't think the commoners should have a voice in politics" elitist BULLSHIT! People didn't protest, suffer, and die for the right of equal representation just to have it nullified by some ignorant self entitled little shits who want the government to decide who gets to have rights and who doesn't. This total complacency of the government is extremely dangerous. I mean it's literally advocating to turn groups of people into second class citizens. I don't care what kind of statistical nonsense you come up with or how misinformed the general public is. The right to vote is a crucial right of the citizenry. Listen carefully: VOTER SUPPRESSION IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I should not have to be pointing this out to anyone, but the limits of human stupidity continue to exceed my expectations. Never have I read anything so abjectly disgusting and horrifying on this forum. You should all be ashamed. I mean it's hard to be worse the fucking GOP when it comes to voters rights but congratulations, you guys somehow outdid them.[/QUOTE] Do you really believe that the congressional elections get the attention they deserve? The original framework was built so that you only needed to be familiar with politicians at a local level essentially. That congressional misconduct mattered a great deal because people paid a lot of attention to their single rep. The entire idea was to present a reasonable workload to citizens and to make the system generally hostile to new legislation. If legislation was to pass, it needed to pass the muster of the people AND veteran politicians. Meanwhile those veterans in the senate weren't watched by the people (as closely) they were watched by the state government, whose job is literally politics. It is a symbiosis of professional career politicians and the people. Right now it is...what? Two legislative bodies that perform the same function. Except in doing so they also disproportionately fuck over the high population states because we froze the number of house reps. Now, in Montana, my vote is worth significantly more than someone in California. Yayyyy democracy? On top of this we have a president who has been granted powers far above his station because reasons. The people shouldn't vote for the President, because the President shouldn't be such an important position. Mob rule isn't something to strive for. A government needs to be more complex than that.
[QUOTE=Amber902;52845196]I just wanna point out the literacy and political aptitude tests would make the eligible voting demographic make a hard turn right by disenfranchising poor black and latino communities with lower literacy rates. This will happen no matter how "fair and unbiased" you make those tests So I guess if you wanna artifically prop up the far right then thats a fine way to do so.[/QUOTE] What world do you live in where the far-right is made up of well-educated, intelligent individuals? It's not. There's numerous studies available that have demonstrated this already. They would not be "propped up" by this sort of initiative.
[QUOTE=Govna;52845933]What world do you live in where the far-right is made up of well-educated, intelligent individuals? It's not. There's numerous studies available that have demonstrated this already. They would not be "propped up" by this sort of initiative.[/QUOTE] It's not a matter of being well-educated causes you to be far-right so much as it is that far-right people tend to come from situations provided where good education is taken for granted, if by inherited wealth or otherwise.
As much as I dislike Trump's policies and behaviour, I firmly believe that it is way too early to suggest whether he should be impeached or not. Sure, the question should be asked if any concrete evidence is presented, if Trump's involvement in collusion with Russia checks out. But until then, it's really dangerous to throw around the impeachment word, especially if you use it just because you don't like him.
You guys didn't fuck up your democracy for good by allowing people to elect their representatives. You fucked it up for good when the Supreme court decided that corporations had the same rights as individuals, and that unlimited monetary donations were a protected form of free speech. Keith Olbermann made a prediction around eight years ago that, when watched today, is just plain chilling. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPayKb39Kao[/media] Of course, he named Palin, not Trump, as the most likely catalyst. But watch that video and tell me that the hell he predicted didn't become our reality. He predicted it all - the rise of the Tea Party degenerates to replace traditional Republicans, all of it.
Palin was definitely a precursor to Trump, and GWB before her.
[QUOTE=Govna;52845933]What world do you live in where the far-right is made up of well-educated, intelligent individuals? It's not. There's numerous studies available that have demonstrated this already.[/quote] Right wing voters tend to have enough literacy and knowledge to pass a basic test, something voters in poor black and latino communities tend to lack. So right wing voters will likely retain their vote unless the test required college level higher education, which would be even stupider. [quote] They would not be "propped up" by this sort of initiative.[/QUOTE] Yes it would. Your massive liberal bias prevents you from seeing that a goodly portion of the right is just as smart as you are. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] The solution is education. Tests are a bandage at best, outright discriminatory at worst
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52846011]Palin was definitely a precursor to Trump, and GWB before her.[/QUOTE] Bush wasn't populist, he was a very hawkish but otherwise mainstream republican whose presidency went off the rails less than a year in due to something he wasn't responsible for. Herman Cain was probably the last "proto-Trump" to appear before Trump ran himself. He was kind of a meme candidate, he defied expectations a few times, and he was pretty weird (though not to the point of appearing mentally ill like Trump). Being a black man he obviously couldn't appeal to the same kind of demographics, but neo-nazis were still in the process of modernizing in 2012.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;52846528]Bush wasn't populist, he was a very hawkish but otherwise mainstream republican whose presidency went off the rails less than a year in due to something he wasn't responsible for. Herman Cain was probably the last "proto-Trump" to appear before Trump ran himself. He was kind of a meme candidate, he defied expectations a few times, and he was pretty weird (though not to the point of appearing mentally ill like Trump). Being a black man he obviously couldn't appeal to the same kind of demographics, but neo-nazis were still in the process of modernizing in 2012.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't lump Bush in either. I'd also say the "proto-Trumps" are less of a problem than the people who enable them. Loudmouth buffoons are dime a dozen (though Trump himself is unique in a few ways not relevant here), it's when the establishment turns a blind eye to them - while still embracing their support, while still aligning with their views - that their shtick gains credence.
Bush was a nimrod of a president who was controlled by his advisors and ultimately sent america into a conflict based on a lie. Trump hasn't done the latter yet but he seems to be chomping at the bit to punch North Korea in the face.
[QUOTE=Amber902;52846382]Right wing voters tend to have enough literacy and knowledge to pass a basic test, something voters in poor black and latino communities tend to lack. So right wing voters will likely retain their vote unless the test required college level higher education, which would be even stupider. Yes it would. Your massive liberal bias prevents you from seeing that a goodly portion of the right is just as smart as you are. [editline]1st November 2017[/editline] The solution is education. Tests are a bandage at best, outright discriminatory at worst[/QUOTE] Left-wing voters tend to have enough literacy and knowledge to pass basic tests too. Most tend to be decent in terms of academic performance and have also successfully completed higher education programs. Younger generations lean significantly more towards leftist politics, and this trend has been ongoing for generations now with no signs of letting up ([url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/20/a-wider-partisan-and-ideological-gap-between-younger-older-generations/ft_17-03-16_generations_ideology_detailed/]source[/url]). Again, most Americans are not stupid. The issue is that [i]enough are[/i] to the point where they believe in things that are factually incorrect and just plain absurd. Also, it helps if you'd read: [QUOTE=Govna;52843300]If we intend to have long-term stability and efficiency, then we've got to have a little elitism ([b]and of course proper education and decent social welfare to facilitate it[/b]).[/QUOTE] If we don't restrict who's allowed to vote, then we've got to restrict the candidates we allow to run and serve in office. Again, denying objective reality because it's inconvenient should not be a tenable political position for people to have-- yet here we are living under the ridiculous circumstances we are. I would remind you that these circumstances carry serious consequences for our future, so it's kind of important that we, you know, make a successful effort to address them. The system needs major reforms dude. We need to abolish the Electoral College since it's an archaic institution that goes against democratic principles, we need to improve the quality of education in this country, and we also need to make sure that individuals like Trump and his cronies/supporters are [i]never[/i] allowed to come anywhere close to power in this country ever again once we're through sorting this mess out. We don't just need one or two of these things, we need [i]all[/i] of them. Or we can do nothing in spite of the fact that what we have is obviously not working, and we leave everything to fate. It's whatever.
You know, I think it's worse than that. I was just hit by a realization, something I hadn't thought of before. In the context of that old court decision, Citizens United, one I'd nearly forgotten about, that allowed Americans to be bought and sold to the highest bidder like so much cattle (Certainly some voters today barely have the capacity for critical thinking that cattle do - that is by design) I think it's already far too late for your country. I want you to think real carefully about why Donald Trump made it so public that he was already fundraising for his 2020 re-election. We always knew that the man was only in it for his own personal gain. So what happens next? The corporations who donate the most money now get their own laws passed? Why do you think the GOP at large has been so fervently defending Trump? Because they know where their money comes from. Impeach him and you still won't guarantee a Democrat victory four or even eight years from now. Why would people vote for the Democrats when the Democrats are being bought and sold too? Why do we have candidates like Hillary Clinton? Why do we have a Democrat party that's now as bad as the Republicans used to be on everything but civil liberties? You've got Justice democrats - the ones who want to drop the identity politics bullshit and focus on real issues - who want higher taxes on the wealthy and better social security, healthcare and education for the average citizen. And yet the party, so full of people who are undoubtedly intelligent, doesn't seem to learn from the mistakes that lost them the last election, does it? Do you honestly believe that what little Trump and his stooges have in fact accomplished, which is to muzzle scientists, back out of environmental agreements, disenfranchise unions, kill social security, and pave the way for a more corporate-controlled America - will all be reversed by the next government if they're democrats? Surely not. The new Democrats know where their money comes from, too. This is only the beginning. Trump's an imbecile, incapable of acting with any subtlety. Watch what will happen with subsequent governments led by individuals who know how to act covertly. Democracy will die, little by little, and almost nobody will notice. Revolution is the only way to save the country - tear down the old and corrupt and begin again. But even revolution won't come if people have a baseline level of comfort and security - that's something the oligarchs who run your country can already provide. And should a revolution come, who's to say that the figureheads of that revolution won't be working on the pay of yet another corporation? Everyone has their price. Just pray that America's international influence will crumble before long - or there won't be any other free country left to run to.
[QUOTE=GunFox;52843028]If only we had designed the country to avoid a populist shitbags taking power. Oh wait, we did. Then we fucked it up by allowing the people to elect the president. He isn't a representative of the people. He is a representative of the close alliance of united states.[/QUOTE] What? The US is among the least representative democracy in the Western world, precisely because of their weird-ass voting system that gives more power to states with less population. If the presidential election was based on the popular vote, Trump wouldn't be president, so this whole "the people are too dumb to vote" spiel doesn't make sense considering the very mechanism that was supposed to bar a populist from getting into power actually made it possible [I]despite[/I] the will of the population.
[QUOTE=GunFox;52845174]He isn't supposed to be in charge. He is our chief diplomat. He is the unified front we present to the outside world to make peace and engage in trade talks. He serves as our face outwardly, and is given just enough authority to do so. He is also the leader of our military. This furthers the power he wields in diplomatic talks, and, more importantly, makes a military coup more difficult. He is the single point of connection that allows the alliance of states to produce a unified outward front and field a unified military force. Our constitution was pretty straightforward on that front. He really isn't supposed to have much power. The decisions are to be made by congress, which also has an interesting twist. The people weren't supposed to elect senators. Basically state governments were supposed to select two senators and send them off. The people were in turn represented in the house of representatives. All legislation has to pass both houses. The House of Representatives is the people's say. They get a person who is in the federal government who pushes their interests. The Senate is there to avoid mob rule. They are supposed to be the educated veteran politicians who are disconnected from the people enough that they can make the hard decisions. Following major events that produce knee jerk reactions, they are supposed to be the voice of reason. Meanwhile they are prevented from gaining too much power by the house of reps, who can shoot down any bullshit they try. Which brings us to why this matters: Currently most of the people on this forum cannot name their house rep off the top of their head. The country was designed for you to ONLY need to worry about who your house rep was. All you would care about was that one person. Instead, everyone cares about the President and largely ignores the rep. Which is a large part of why congress sucks such a massive dick that it can't get anything done, but also has a ridiculously low turnover. Nobody is paying attention to the branch of the government that matters most. This system ultimately meant two things 1) The people had a say, and the ability to shut down any legislation they wanted without the government descending into mob rule. 2) Legislation was difficult as fuck to pass, thus making any power over a single branch effectively worthless. It feels counter-intuitive, but it was a brilliant plan with proper checks and balances that was designed to allow even the uneducated to have their say in government, but not allow them to completely steer the ship into turbulent waters. Donald Trump is literally the reason we weren't supposed to elect the president. He is the physical embodiment of why mob rule is dangerous.[/QUOTE] If we actually had mob rule, then Hillary Clinton would be president right now. She won the popular vote by a lot. Also the problem is people have to worry about who is president because of what the position has become. The president and their administration can cast tiebreaker votes (like Pence just did), and also has veto power to deny bills from passing without a supermajority. They also get to appoint the heads of agencies which enforce rules and regulations, and has significant sway over their policy. I mean just look at who they've put in charge of education, the EPA, the FCC, etc... Even worse, some of those agencies are not even bound by the laws they're meant to enforce, so in effect the president can set policies which sometimes operate outside of the law (DEA/ATF/ICE). How are people supposed to worry only about their own personal bubbles/states when federal authorities can just undercut your state's policies and decisions regardless of who was elected to represent your state? The first thing which needs to be done is to take the money out of politics while reigning in the massive overreaching power of the federal government. Taking away voters rights and going backwards a couple centuries isn't going to fix the problems we have now. Also people in this thread have talked about restricting the right to vote without specifying if on a state or federal level. The assumption I have to go on is that they want to restrict both, in which case your example of only needing to vote on a state level wouldn't be possible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.