US Elections 2018: Democrats take House, Republicans keep Senate, - Polidicks

Yes, the state is gerrymandered, but god do the rural parts of the state overblow it, they look at landsize, not population https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1977/80915347-9d94-4d12-82a5-45d3e9469415/image.png The rest of the state is p. much just corn. The lines need to be redrawn, but its barely gonna help.

The Trump admin is holding a specific, "inferior" race in inhumane internment, adopting an incredibly nationalist, militaristic and aggressive foreign policy full of posturing, stripping civil rights away from minority groups, gaining and retaining followers through a cult of personality, and taking a strong stance against freedom of the press. If that doesn't draw comparisons I don't understand what will.

Also, side note, are you implying that the entirity of the German populace should be guilty of the Holocaust? Because they allowed, and many of them promoted, the actions of their government? This is the widely studied bystader effect, which I'm sure you're familiar with. Isn't the general consensus that due to psychology conditioning and authurative figures (think the Milgram experiment we've all had pounded into our heads during sociology) people are more likely to do something they don't necessarily believe in?

https://i.imgur.com/BMDKrql.png I don't think my representative is very well liked. Only 73% of the vote. Out of all five representative elections and the governorship he's one of two to get higher than the 50s and the only one to break the 70% mark. Though from what I've seen, Blumenauer is actually popular even among Republicans because he's pretty down to Earth and in touch with his constituents. All our elections went as expected though. All districts other than the eastern one elected Democrats and the governor (re)elected a Democrat as well. Though Knute Beuhler was pretty iffy as Kate Brown's opponent for governor anyways. I haven't heard much in the way of complaints about Brown while she was governor last term but I heard quite a lot of attack ads the bent and manipulated facts to paint Beuhler as better than her. My favorite was one where he apparently tried to imply he was pro-choice despite having publicly opposed Roe vs. Wade in the past. He implied Brown wasn't pro-choice when she is. That would not go over well in modern America. I'm pretty confident that the moment Congress tries to do that, regardless of which party does it, there would be open revolt from the other side out of fear of what they would do. Because a bipartisan attempt at a convention would ever happen. (Not that a one--party attempt would either. I think it's basically impossible for one party to control enough of Congress to accomplish that.) Unlimited subpoena power is a very powerful tool though which can help sway public opinion in favor of Mueller when he drops his bomb. What the fuck is DECLAS? I tried looking it up but got nothing actually useful. Oregon is a good example here of a not gerrymandered state. The eastern district makes up about 2/3rds of the state area-wise yet that 2/3rds of the state contains only about 20% of the populace while my district, the smallest one in the state, barely covers more than Multnomah County and also contains about 20% of the populace. Unfortunately a shit load of people fail to understand that detail though so they see the map going mostly red and think "well why are the Republicans struggling so much when they're clearly winning??"

The general consensus is also that simply stating 'I did it because I was ordered to' is not a legal defense. You are culpable for your actions. If you permit Nazi actions, you are allowing Nazi policy. In the case of promoting the government they are absolutely responsible if they continued supporting it despite knowing it was doing bad things. This is not a problem of 'overcriminalization', where we apply strict liability standards without a mens rea component to folks who just plainly are being unfairly treated by the law as 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. Instead, what you're arguing about here is more or less 'they were forced into doing so under duress'. That is a valid legal defense in a variety of situations. However, Duress is fairly particular (beyond being down to the individual state as to how it's looked at). But in general, to claim Duress as a defense for doing actions that were illegal you: (a) Have to have been directly threatened to 'do something or else' (you hear a rumor that Nazis execute people who don't do everything they say wouldn't be enough here), (b) You must have an actual, reasonable, fear that you (or someone else) will be killed and (c) You must fear that it would happen right now (not at some vague point in the future) and (d) You have 'no other way out'. Just following that definition, they wouldn't be able to claim Duress in a lot of the US for 'doing what the Nazis told them'. They could've moved out of the country. A lot of them were not personally threatened by the Nazis and, even when they were threatened, most of them were not put in a 'do or die right now' sort of situation. If that person was held at gunpoint and told to allow the Nazi person to shoot the Jew, they could claim Duress as a defense for their actions. The Nazi, however, made no immediate, demonstrable, threat to them or their safety -- they instead simply asked permission and the bystander believed their life was in danger. In this regard, if a random criminal asks for your permission to shoot someone, never aiming in your direction or indicating that they would harm you in any fashion up to that point, you are culpable for what that random criminal does. I don't think they should be held as 'guilty' under ethics individually -- but as a nation, yes, I would hold them responsible.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1060022696703070208

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/us/politics/house-democrats-nancy-pelosi.html Reading the House Democrats' agenda is refreshing. None of it will get into law of course but it's nice to see a governing plan that isn't just a list of people who they're gonna fuck over, and if they can get half of this done after 2020 we'll be dreamin: Democratic leaders say they would use their first month in the House majority to advance sweeping changes to future campaign and ethics laws, requiring the disclosure of shadowy political donors, outlawing the gerrymandering of congressional districts and restoring key enforcement provisions to the Voting Rights Act. They would then turn to infrastructure investment and the climbing costs of prescription drugs, answering voter demands and challenging President Trump’s willingness to work on shared policy priorities with a party he has vilified. The idea, said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, is to show voters that Democrats are a governing party, not the leftist mob that Mr. Trump has described — and to extend an arm of cooperation to the president after an electoral rebuke. As they talked up possible bipartisan initiatives, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer said that Democrats would push through — on party-line votes if necessary — other more liberal agenda items they say enjoy broad public support but have been stymied for years by Republican majorities. They include gun safety legislation; a bill to give permanent legal status and a path to citizenship to young, undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children; and the Equality Act, which would amend longstanding civil rights laws to extend legal protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Ms. Pelosi said that she would urge her caucus to revive a select committee focused on climate change, similar to the one that Democrats financed from 2007 to early 2011, to “prepare the way with evidence” for energy conservation and other climate change mitigation legislation. Republicans defunded the panel when they took the majority, but Ms. Pelosi said it was clearly still needed to educate the public about the impact of more frequent extreme weather events. In an echo of actions they took in 2007, the last time they assumed House control, Democrats plan to use a package of rules governing the chamber prepared by Mr. McGovern to take unilateral steps that they say will tighten ethical standards, including — in a nod to a continuing ethics scandal roiling Republicans — a ban on House members’ sitting on corporate boards. Chief among the legislation’s provisions would be a measure by Representative Terri Sewell of Alabama that would amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to comply with a 2013 Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder that gutted the bill’s key enforcement provision. In issuing its 5-to-4 decision, the court urged Congress to replace the scheme under which the federal government had overseen changes to election laws in states with a history of voting rights abuses. Another measure would require certain political nonprofits to disclose the identity of most of their donors for the first time. Democrats would like to go further, passing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision and restore to Congress the power to limit money in politics, but those political prospects appear slim. Yet another provision would require all states to establish independent commissions to draw congressional districts. Several states already employ such bodies, but gerrymandering of political boundaries is the norm in most states, allowing the party in control of state government to create the most favorable jurisdictions for its congressional elections every decade, distorting the will of voters, Democrats argue. Also included are a series of bills tightening restrictions on federal lobbyists, beefing up the executive branch’s Office of Government Ethics, which clashed with Mr. Trump early in his presidency, and requiring the president and vice president to divest any business holdings to prevent a possible conflict of interest.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html Losing 26 House seats to the Democrats giving them control of the House doesn't really seem like a red wave. Even more so considering they still only have 51 seats in the Senate which is only a slight majority.

Okay, so this got me thinking. I haven't looked into Nevada's laws at all, but are people voting for a person or a party? If a party can just appoint whoever they want to replace their deceased candidate, how is this handled if this happens to an independent? Does it just go to second place? Does the governor appoint an interim representative until they have a special election? What happens if a candidate withdraws immediately before the election, does their name still appear on the ballot? If they win, does this same thing happen?

They vote for the person. Republicans are just so partisan they would rather vote for a dead man over a democrat. The governor will probably appoint a replacement, the procedure for that definitely varies by state. whether this triggers a special election also varies by state. american politics can be arcane.

Okay, everything you said is true, so back to the original argument. Apparently the right of the United States are Nazis, because they are aiding and or abetting Nazi policy. Except the mainstream right isn't practicing fascism or Nazism? That's why the alt-right got it's term. I'd even say it;s a stretch to consider alt-right members racist. Fascist, many of them, but not Nazis. Now for Trump and his buddies... they refuse to condemn Nazism and actively supported Nazis/white supremacist apologists, but never openly endorsed their policies. He's certainly suggested them, and I'd personally categorize Trump as an authoritative Fascist, and maybe even Nazi sympathizer deep down, but there isn't a downright Nazi as president. 24% of the Jewish population voted for Trump, and antisemitism is a irrefutable hallmark of Nazism. I think the now classic saying, "not all trump supporters are racists, but all racists are trump supporters." All Nazi's are trump supporters. But so is a tad under half of the United States

Republican politicians are routinely repeating alt-right lies, and talking points. Honestly, i didn't know someone could argue from ignorance quite this hard, lope. The republican party itself, is supporting regressive, and anti-democratic policies. We've had numerous articles elaborating on this. You respond to this by; 1) Ignoring those articles 2) Repeating common right wing talking points about how the left is actually at fault here Stephen Miller is in the administration. Steve King is an iowan republican who is a white supremacist. Kemp is actively trying to dismantle democracy in his state. I'm so tired of flat out misinformation and ignorance. Learn yourself some current events for fucks sakes.

It got its term from a notorious white supremacist, who invented the term expressly to cover for 'wink wink secretly white nationalist and supremacist'. Adopting a white supremacist into their immigration policy components, endorsing their policy, and allowing them to run roughshod over those who're actually appointed to manage those things shows quite clearly a full endorsement of those policies. If Trump didn't like them, he'd have him 'resign' -- just like he did with Jeff Sessions. You're either on the Trump Train with Trump's full support -- or you're kicked off it. That much has been made crystal clear by the constant revolving door at the White House and Trump's adamant insistence that people 'be loyal' to not just him but also his views and policies. "There's no such thing as a self-hating Jew" is what I'm guessing you're getting at here. You would be very wrong on that front. Let's be really straight-shooting here: If he is rolling the red carpet out for the Nazis to come in after his term, what is the gull-damned difference?

Their idea was to create such a shitty, desperate situation in rural areas so that people would see them as saviors despite them being the perpetrators. I'm not sure you can even "un-brainwash" these people. They seem too far gone.

https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/251786/8010613d-2a37-4c34-a3fd-26c5c5adb297/WeGotTheHouse.gif

I dont recall blaming the left for anything.. I was just saying the left shouldn't regress to republican tactics of gridlock. I don't doubt that republican politicians are terrible for this democracy. Since this beginning I've been defending the republican voter, the people I'm friends with despite differing on political ideas. I know these pople aren't racists or Nazis nor support their ideas. I know plenty of people who vote Republican but hate the Trump rhetoric and how he treats immigrants and the like. Unfortunately, they value is other policies above immigration and social policy. Lots of other people do. Going back to my earlier posts, if the Democrats can work to educate people, highlight the republican bullshit, if more articles like the ones you accuse me of not reading pop up, these common red voters will swap or vote for people who DO NOT support Nazis. They will not reelect Trump. They will not reelect Mitch McConnell. That is how democracy works. That's how you combat a party abusing the system, in a democratic way. You don't just fucking shoot down every attempt they make at governing like they did you. If one of those attempts says "hey let's kill all the jews!" or "lock up immigrant children!" then yeah, shoot it down right away. But then bring attention to those politicians advocate for that, and let their constituents handle it in the democratic way. 36% voted for Trump, but that was enough to get him elected in our system. If, now that we have 1 majority, we shoot down everything the reds try to do, will those 36% suddenly decide the blues are great and vote for us come 2020? Or will they double down on Trump and even though it's a minority, have enough power to win again? And you know what. If the country fully understands Trump is a Nazi, and fully supports Nazis and continues to elect Nazis or Fascists despite knowing that they are Nazis or Facsists, than thats the way this country goes. The utmost priority should be protecting the rights of election. Combating gerrymandering, election fraud, voter fraud, and interference. The republican politicians don't want to do this, but I'm willing to bet the republican voter does.

They're irrelevant to this discussion. Their desires have zero weight in this administration aside from them voting people in who will continue to completely ignore them and do only what Trump wants.

That's why the democrats have a responsibility to publicize that bullshit, schools have the repsonsibility to teach it, and we have the responsiiblity to share those articles and have discussions like the one me and you are having right now

The problem with trying to educate the populace is that it's way way easier to bullshit than it is to call people out on that bullshit and make your case.

They already have been - and yet folks like you continue to throw dust into the air over it and keep going 'well it can't be that bad'. It is that bad. Schools are more or less completely controlled by Republicans, including what is taught in them and what books they buy. We already have that responsibility, yes, but we also have the responsibility to bend to understanding and accepting the situation rather than disputing that 'no, it can't be that you must be wrong' simply because it's dire or bad-sounding.

We need to go from this: one candidate: conservative ideas+ALL THIS NAZI SHIT to: one candidate: conservative ideas one candidate: nazi shit and blues need to be willing to compromise on those conservative ideas, but not the fucking nazi shit

Yeah, and those bills do things like 'we're going to completely gut medicare' and 'here's trillions of dollars to our rich donors'.

They LITERALLY CAMPAIGNED ON KEEPING THE ACA AROUND, WHILE THEIR POLICY ACTUALLY STATES THEY WILL DEFUND IT. They're literally campaigning on flat out untruths, and nothing will change the fact some people believe fucking lies. There is no equivalency here. The dems have to absolutely shutter any motion the Republicans make because they're actively doing dishonest, and disgusting things, and lying about it blatantly.

And just you think I need to be willing to bend to understanding this situation that all hope is lost, I think you need to bend to understand that not every single republican politician in office is trying to dismantle the democracy, many of them genuinely care quite a lot about it, and not every single republican bill is a shit show like the one's we've seen recently with the all republican control.

Now you're just bending my words to make it easier to defend your own position. All hope is not lost. All hope is only lost if folks start thinking 'well, this isn't as bad as everyone says it is, you're just exaggerating' or 'there's nothing we can do'. Prove it. Show me Republicans who are actively fighting with real teeth Trump's policies. Not little shows of force and 'furrowed brows'. Actual efforts.

So, you're saying the dems take the house, they should capitulate to republican interests during that time. They should also, ideally seek their own legislative goals out, bipartisanly, right? You're literally creating the atmosphere that existed in 2010, one that created the republicans we can see today in many ways. and you naively think this will improve things? The republicans won't compromise on ANYTHING the dems bring up. THIS IS THEIR FUCKING POLICY. Trying to play nice with them so they get what they want, so you can hold a moral high ground that you're "better" is self destructive, and feeds into their fucking messaging.

Okay. I just, personally, do not believe the solution to a broken government is the government actively trying to prevent the government from getting this done.

So, just to be clear: You don't believe the solution to 'people are trying to burn down the government' is 'stop them from burning down the government even if doing so requires breaking the government'?

Just to be clear, I believe when my representative, Cory Booker, receives a ballot for a bill that says "Burn down the government?" he will vote no. When my representative receives a bill that says "Burn down the government, and cut taxes for the rich by 10%" he will say "hey, how bout we get rid of the burning down the government part and change that cut by 10 to raise by 10" and haggle from there. I do not want my Representative to receive a bill that says "Cut taxes for the rich by 10%" and downright vote no with no attempt to compromise, like I interpreted your ideas as suggestion.

So what? Life is shitty and has shitty decisions that MUST be made. The problem is obvious dude. The republicans have spent 8 years as Obstructionist politicians. Prior to that, they were ringled by Newt Gingrich, on the platform of, even more obstructionism! They refused to compromise, capitulate, or give in on anything. What did this result in? They gained more power, continued to wield power, and continued to enact their legislative agendas without very much pushback. They won. Their tactics won. They got everything they've wanted at this point. They've staffed the courts, high and low, for the next 30 years to come. They "won" democracy as much as anyone can. You say "The dems shouldn't do that". Why the hell not? I don't like it, I don't support it, but our reality apparently is fucked up enough that anything short of aggressive gamesmanship will lose you the game.