US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House

[SerHaHa]

I guess we'll see what we see.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

I guess we'll see what we see.

Well, if you're like millions of people who voted Republican chances are good that you will see what you want, look for fake news that confirms your desires and then trumpet it as truth. 

That said, you really shouldn't get your hopes up. There is literally no law that could pass muster which the Federal government can pass to overturn Roe v Wade. They can pass an amendment, but it cannot be ratified by congress as it exists. The best bet is controlling enough state legislations to be able to pass constitutional amendments that way - which is close - but the earliest that can be done is 2018, and it is unlikely that some states would go for it (like Washington would be one of those states, and good luck with that here). 

The other hope is that Roe v. Wade is struck down by a challenge made in court. The problem there is that there is a lot of case law and precedent that has already come to be regarding Roe v Wade, and it is difficult legally to simply ignore all of that in favor of something new without major other precedent. Even the most 'constitutional' legal minds tend to favor precedent for this reason. Basically you'd have to come up with some new reason why this was different than the 50 years of case law prior. Again, good luck with that.

Was thinking about that idly earlier today - if 2018 rolls around and the Republicans control enough states to pass amendments as they choose - what would they choose to do? My guess is that they'd first amend the constitution to allow unlimited spending on political races. Roe v. Wade is probably divisive enough that it wouldn't pass muster across the 38 states, but unlimited spending probably would. 

[Fez]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Was thinking about that idly earlier today - if 2018 rolls around and the Republicans control enough states to pass amendments as they choose - what would they choose to do? My guess is that they'd first amend the constitution to allow unlimited spending on political races. Roe v. Wade is probably divisive enough that it wouldn't pass muster across the 38 states, but unlimited spending probably would. 

Even if Republicans did control enough state legislatures after 2018 (which I really, really doubt) to pass constitutional amendments, they won't. If they're going to bypass Congress (which they'd have to, since there's no chance they'll have the two-thirds majorities there), they can't just propose an individual amendment, they have to propose a constitutional convention. Anything could happen at a convention, and there's enough Republicans scared about what might ensure that most of their state legislatures would never approve it. And the Democratic ones certainly wouldn't.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Climate change is a hoax. Remember the voter base: a lot of people who believe the universe is only 10,000 years old. Therefore evidence of climate change from environmental samples and climate data dating back hundreds of thousands of years is by definition false, as the Earth did not exist hundreds of thousands of years ago. And obviously so-called "fossil" fuels were not put there by the slow accumulation and transformation of millions of years ancient organic matter. It was placed there by God for us to extract and use it. So really, opposing fossil fuels is opposing God's will.

While they may be 100% wrong about everything, at least they are internally consistent with their own logic. If there are people opposing climate change mitigations and support increased use of fossil fuels who actually know climate change is happening and humans are a substantial cause, well I just don't know how they square this away.

Even accepting their intellectual bankruptcy and willful disregard for scientific knowledge (provided by god, one might say), it still stands that their goal is to destroy.  They see what coal mining does to people, to the area where it's mined, to the water and to the air and they still beg for coal mining.  They want this wretched horrible life for their children, to commit their grandkids to a diminished life so that maybe they can have a bigger house or something.

They see what oil drilling does, the damage it causes to the land, what happens when it spills, the increased earthquakes that Oklahoma is experiencing, and yet they say "hey, we want all that and more!  In fact, we want it to be worse than it is now!  Oh, and we'd like to destroy the national park system so our kids have fewer places to to interact with nature and make memories because we want even more oil drilling, even more filth and destruction!"

I could go on and on. They want to ignore the science, the things they can't immediately see or be able to access the knowledge for easily, fine.  Fine, fine, fine.  But I don't give them a free pass when on all of it.  They know these things they want are bigly destructive because they've seen it and they still want it.  Fuck them.  I don't give them a pass or let them pretend like they care about their children.  They don't (and not just with this, which I'll bring up with one of those child and future haters in just a moment).

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm thinkin now, that maybe I should get in on the fake news bonanza.

It looks like I'm gonna need the money for some really good air conditioning and sun tan lotion. It's gonna be a hot one.

I already sweat enough without any excessive heat. If I have to be inconvenienced with some extra perspiration, then surely conservatives can undergo the inconvenience of finding out that the penis enhancement pills they bought don't work.

Yeah, that plan you me and LongRider were joking about earlier is starting to look better as the days wears on.

[Swordfish]

41 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, if you're like millions of people who voted Republican chances are good that you will see what you want, look for fake news that confirms your desires and then trumpet it as truth. 

That said, you really shouldn't get your hopes up. There is literally no law that could pass muster which the Federal government can pass to overturn Roe v Wade. They can pass an amendment, but it cannot be ratified by congress as it exists. The best bet is controlling enough state legislations to be able to pass constitutional amendments that way - which is close - but the earliest that can be done is 2018, and it is unlikely that some states would go for it (like Washington would be one of those states, and good luck with that here). 

The other hope is that Roe v. Wade is struck down by a challenge made in court. The problem there is that there is a lot of case law and precedent that has already come to be regarding Roe v Wade, and it is difficult legally to simply ignore all of that in favor of something new without major other precedent. Even the most 'constitutional' legal minds tend to favor precedent for this reason. Basically you'd have to come up with some new reason why this was different than the 50 years of case law prior. Again, good luck with that.

Was thinking about that idly earlier today - if 2018 rolls around and the Republicans control enough states to pass amendments as they choose - what would they choose to do? My guess is that they'd first amend the constitution to allow unlimited spending on political races. Roe v. Wade is probably divisive enough that it wouldn't pass muster across the 38 states, but unlimited spending probably would. 

Wait a second now...  Not that I disagree with you here, I don't, but wasn't the bog bad boogeyman of overturning Roe V Wade one of the reasons to vote Hilary( #anyonebuttrump)?

What changed?

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Aaaaannnnnd shit continues to get worse.

Seriously, I simply cannot understand why conservatives care so little for their children or other future generations.  It's unfathomable to me.  This whole "let's destroy everything as much as possible so that I personally can enjoy some luxury right now in this moment" is completely and utterly alien to me.  

People are typically short sighted and global warming is a very long term threat, so most people, especially if they're disinterested in the science, won't be encouraged to do anything about it until it's too late (and for a lot of people it's already too late. I'd be living in Miami right now if I thought I could live there for the next 50 years). 

2 hours ago, Commodore said:

Trump knocked it out of the park with that EPA nominee

Not sure I'd be too excited about the first step in completely undermining our standing in the world. If Trump et al kill the Paris Agreement we'll become global pariahs over night.

41 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The other hope is that Roe v. Wade is struck down by a challenge made in court. The problem there is that there is a lot of case law and precedent that has already come to be regarding Roe v Wade, and it is difficult legally to simply ignore all of that in favor of something new without major other precedent. Even the most 'constitutional' legal minds tend to favor precedent for this reason. Basically you'd have to come up with some new reason why this was different than the 50 years of case law prior. Again, good luck with that.

It won't be that hard to overturn RvW if Trump can have two nominees who are willing to do so, but I remain skeptical that Republicans really want this (I'm talking about the elites). It kills their best political boogeyman and it will push women even more towards Democrats once it becomes clear that there is no way to outlaw abortions and not punish women for seeking them (more so then they already do).  

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, SerHaHa said:

Strange that the left always throws out the "but it's to protect our children's future" when they want their way regarding any issue, yet are perfectly fine with the wholesale slaughter of children by the buckets - which oddly enough is where their remains end up after "procedures". 

Strange how the left actually cares about children, care so much that they want children to have better access to education, to food, to housing, to medical care.  A huge part of the left's agenda is to make life better for the most vulnerable, children especially.  They are our future.  

The right, on the other hand, cares only about fetuses and wombs.  You don't give a fuck about anyone or anything once it's a person who is born.  You do your damndest to block access to family planning options and sex education, you know, all the things that help prevent the abortions you claim to hate so much. You encourage rape culture and then leave the victims with few resources for recovery.  You treat access to health care as though it's the devil's agent.  You hate children so much that you actively campaign to reduce their access to food, especially if they are poor.  In fact, you sometimes even blame and punish them if you think their parents might be drug abusers.  You're willing to spend millions of dollars to drug test parents just to prevent children from having fucking food.  You'll poison an entire generation with lead laced water just to feel the pleasure of saving a few bucks in the moment. Your ilk will torture children mentally and physically if you don't like who they are.  Fuck, I'd be here all night if I had to explain the ways you don't give a fuck about children or future generations.  

You don't give a fuck about children or else you'd be doing for the ones that actually exist not just worrying about what's going on in a woman's private womb.

By the way, Ohio just passed a bill to ban abortion after the heartbeat can be detected, or before most women even know they are pregnant.  What they haven't passed is a bill that provides enough funding for the children that already exist.  They haven't charged the people in uniform who murder children at parks.  They don't do shit because they don't care.

[Altherion]

13 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I don't understand. I'm really trying, but I don't understand. You say you hate the neoliberalism that caters to the rich and disagree with the social rights focus (which do not have to be exclusive of economic focus), the elites/establishment and you want to see an end to the absurd income inequality. But your champion is a fraudulent billionaire and his billionaire friends and the elites of the republican establishment he is appointing to every level of his new administration. I seriously do not understand.

Rippounet explains the gist of it here:

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Are you implying that his purpose is to scare the establishment into reducing inequality by itself to prevent the election of a truly populist leader / genuine outsider? To engage in population control in other words? I've read a thing or two along those lines though I've never seen anyone link such ideas to Trump.

Let me elaborate on this a bit. The nature of the "champion" does not matter. Eight years ago, we elected a champion who could hardly have been better had he stepped out of a storybook: young, intelligent, charismatic, biracial and not a lifetime DC insider, but with some high level experience. Furthermore, we gave his party large majorities in both houses of Congress. If there was any chance of a champion fixing this issue, that was it -- but we all know how that turned out.

The crucial thing about Trump is that he was elected against the will of most of the establishment. The media and academia were overwhelmingly against him. The donors were against him roughly 2:1. Even the political class (which usually splits by party) was far more united against him than in a typical election: a non-trivial part of the Republican party's upper tiers were either very lukewarm in their support or simply opposed him outright. And, as we were (and still are!) endlessly reminded, he has a long, long list of negative qualities. The establishment dared the people to elect a candidate with no qualifications and half a dozen disqualifying incidents... and the people called their bluff.

It is certainly possible and probably more likely than not that Trump will find some accommodation with the elites that does not reduce inequality. However, what he has shown is that the desire for change is already so strong that almost no candidate is too radical. Early on in the Democratic primary (before people started doing head-to-head polls of Clinton vs. Trump and Sanders vs. Trump), one of the most effective arguments against Sanders was that there's simply no way he could possibly win the general election. For the next few cycles, this argument is finished because the reply to it will be "What about Trump?"

And yes, the election of Trump dramatically increases the commonly believed estimate of the probability of a true radical coming to power. At the moment, this is still believed to be quite small, but it is clear now that is not as small as it was believed and it is also clear that it must increase if the discontent does not diminish. Furthermore, the elites know this and a fraction of them will act to lessen the discontent (the rest will assume that they can squeeze a bit more).

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

Ripponet explains the gist of it here:

Let me elaborate on this a bit. The nature of the "champion" does not matter. Eight years ago, we elected a champion who could hardly have been better had he stepped out of a storybook: young, intelligent, charismatic, biracial and not a lifetime DC insider, but with some high level experience. Furthermore, we gave his party large majorities in both houses of Congress. If there was any chance of a champion fixing this issue, that was it -- but we all know how that turned out.

The crucial thing about Trump is that he was elected against the will of most of the establishment. The media and academia were overwhelmingly against him. The donors were against him roughly 2:1. Even the political class (which usually splits by party) was far more united against him than in a typical election: a non-trivial part of the Republican party's upper tiers were either very lukewarm in their support or simply opposed him outright. And, as we were (and still are!) endlessly reminded, he has a long, long list of negative qualities. The establishment dared the people to elect a candidate with no qualifications and half a dozen disqualifying incidents... and the people called their bluff.

It is certainly possible and probably more likely than not that Trump will find some accommodation with the elites that does not reduce inequality. However, what he has shown is that the desire for change is already so strong that almost no candidate is too radical. Early on in the Democratic primary (before people started doing head-to-head polls of Clinton vs. Trump and Sanders vs. Trump), one of the most effective arguments against Sanders was that there's simply no way he could possibly win the general election. For the next few cycles, this argument is finished because the reply to it will be "What about Trump?"

And yes, the election of Trump dramatically increases the commonly believed estimate of the probability of a true radical coming to power. At the moment, this is still believed to be quite small, but it is clear now that is not as small as it was believed and it is also clear that it must increase if the discontent does not diminish. Furthermore, the elites know this and a fraction of them will act to lessen the discontent (the rest will assume that they can squeeze a bit more).

But doesn't that entire premise lie on the idea of Trump receiving a groundswell of support? He didn't, he got Romney's numbers. And in fact has lost the popular vote by a lot. And the people who voted for him are the same ones that continuously vote for the republican 'elites'.

[SerHaHa]

Quote

Strange how the left actually cares about children, care so much that they want children to have better access to education, to food, to housing, to medical care.  A huge part of the left's agenda is to make life better for the most vulnerable, children especially.  They are our future.  

The right, on the other hand, cares only about fetuses and wombs.  You don't give a fuck about anyone or anything once it's a person who is born.  You do your damndest to block access to family planning options and sex education, you know, all the things that help prevent the abortions you claim to hate so much. You encourage rape culture and then leave the victims with few resources for recovery.  You treat access to health care as though it's the devil's agent.  You hate children so much that you actively campaign to reduce their access to food, especially if they are poor.  In fact, you sometimes even blame and punish them if you think their parents might be drug abusers.  You're willing to spend millions of dollars to drug test parents just to prevent children from having fucking food.  You'll poison an entire generation with lead laced water just to feel the pleasure of saving a few bucks in the moment. Your ilk will torture children mentally and physically if you don't like who they are.  Fuck, I'd be here all night if I had to explain the ways you don't give a fuck about children or future generations.  

You don't give a fuck about children or else you'd be doing for the ones that actually exist not just worrying about what's going on in a woman's private womb.

By the way, Ohio just passed a bill to ban abortion after the heartbeat can be detected, or before most women even know they are pregnant.  What they haven't passed is a bill that provides enough funding for the children that already exist.  They haven't charged the people in uniform who murder children at parks.  They don't do shit because they don't care.

Rage liberal, rage - fortunately that's all you've got now.

When have you ever stood in anyone's defense?  Have you been shot at, had your vehicles blown apart, while protecting Red Cross employees, who are in turn protecting children?  I somehow doubt it, yet you can tell me all about how I've never protected children, while being in favor of dangerous ideals which are more responsible for harming the future of children than anything else.

People like you, your time is over now, at least for a while.  I'll take a while.

Also, I've never voted for a Republican in my life, nor Trump.

[Altherion]

6 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

But doesn't that entire premise lie on the idea of Trump receiving a groundswell of support? He didn't, he got Romney's numbers. And in fact has lost the popular vote by a lot. And the people who voted for him are the same ones that continuously vote for the republican 'elites'.

No, it does not. The margin of the victory and secondary parameters such as the popular vote are much, much less important than the simple fact that he won. At best, they are useful for propaganda, but even that can be counteracted as one can cherry pick other secondary parameters which are favorable to him (e.g. Trump won more Electoral College votes than any Republican since 1988) and cast doubts upon those of your adversaries (which is what he has done with the popular vote). It doesn't matter whether one wins the Presidency by 10 votes or 10 million votes; the power attained is very nearly the same.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, SerHaHa said:

No, just cool with the extinction of those who prey on the defenseless for their own convenience.

The Right now has the political power, and resolve, to do something about that now.

Wait, so you want to kill people who have and carry out abortions?

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

No, it does not. The margin of the victory and secondary parameters such as the popular vote are much, much less important than the simple fact that he won. At best, they are useful for propaganda, but even that can be counteracted as one can cherry pick other secondary parameters which are favorable to him (e.g. Trump won more Electoral College votes than any Republican since 1988) and cast doubts upon those of your adversaries (which is what he has done with the popular vote). It doesn't matter whether one wins the Presidency by 10 votes or 10 million votes; the power attained is very nearly the same.

But your whole point is that America rejected the establishment in favor of Trump when the numbers are showing us that what happened was Republicans voted for the republican regardless of who he was and democrats stayed home.

[Dr. Pepper]

21 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

Rage liberal, rage - fortunately that's all you've got now.

When have you ever stood in anyone's defense?  Have you been shot at, had your vehicles blown apart, while protecting Red Cross employees, who are in turn protecting children?  I somehow doubt it, yet you can tell me all about how I've never protected children, while being in favor of dangerous ideals which are more responsible for harming the future of children than anything else.

People like you, your time is over now, at least for a while.  I'll take a while.

Also, I've never voted for a Republican in my life, nor Trump.

So only people who are veterans care about kids?  Ok, well that's obviously not true, but yeah, I'm a veteran.  

Which has nothing to do with anything and says nothing about how I feel about people, especially children, only that I made a specific career choice when I was 17.  

[mormont]

25 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

But doesn't that entire premise lie on the idea of Trump receiving a groundswell of support? He didn't, he got Romney's numbers. And in fact has lost the popular vote by a lot. And the people who voted for him are the same ones that continuously vote for the republican 'elites'.

Let me save you some time. Altherion's point of view is similar to that of someone looking at a messy kitchen and chucking in a hand grenade, on the grounds that it might miraculously improve the situation or if it doesn't, at least it'll encourage the owner to finally clean up. It makes no sense and has no relationship with how the world actually works. At root, I think he just wants to see the fireworks.

13 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

When have you ever stood in anyone's defense?

 

It's great that you have served. But that doesn't negate the point. Lives, once saved, need to be cared for, and the right in the US has no interest in doing that.

In any case, abortion is like gambling, prostitution, and drugs. It's not a question of eliminating them. No society in history has ever managed to do that. It's about how you manage them. Make them illegal, and leave them to those who operate outside the law? Or regulate them within the law?

These are the only two choices that exist. Pick one.

[The Anti-Targ]

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

No, it does not. The margin of the victory and secondary parameters such as the popular vote are much, much less important than the simple fact that he won. At best, they are useful for propaganda, but even that can be counteracted as one can cherry pick other secondary parameters which are favorable to him (e.g. Trump won more Electoral College votes than any Republican since 1988) and cast doubts upon those of your adversaries (which is what he has done with the popular vote). It doesn't matter whether one wins the Presidency by 10 votes or 10 million votes; the power attained is very nearly the same.

If Trump turns out to be a howling failure and merely brings more corruption and cronyism into politics I don't see how him being elected is going to help get another radical outsider who is actually morally and ethically fit for the task elected. It's more likely voters will be turned off going for the maverick outsider.

[Kalbear]

43 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If Trump turns out to be a howling failure and merely brings more corruption and cronyism into politics I don't see how him being elected is going to help get another radical outsider who is actually morally and ethically fit for the task elected. It's more likely voters will be turned off going for the maverick outsider.

Alternately, it's more likely that the system will be permanently rigged so that it cannot be changed and cronyism, oligarchy and autocracy will become the norm, and there will not be another chance.

That is how most countries go. Democracy doesn't usually get a second chance. 

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Alternately, it's more likely that the system will be permanently rigged so that it cannot be changed and cronyism, oligarchy and autocracy will become the norm, and there will not be another chance.

That is how most countries go. Democracy doesn't usually get a second chance. 

Partisan democracy does need to die. Perhaps the road to a more pure democracy runs through a wasteland of oligarchy and autocracy.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Partisan democracy does need to die. Perhaps the road to a more pure democracy runs through a wasteland of oligarchy and autocracy.

I'm not convinced partisan democracy needs to die. It was quite good for a long stretch of the US's history. Partisan democracy where parties are weak isn't good, and partisan democracy where there is no benefit for compromising isn't good either. 

That said, I'm heavily in favor of multiparty democracies and strong, yet fluid, parties. New Zealand has, like, the best system of government I've found so far - a MPP parliamentary democracy that works well, has a lot of coalitions, and gets things done, along with distinct parties that tend to address only a few issues as their 'main' ones.

[The guy from the Vale]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Partisan democracy does need to die. Perhaps the road to a more pure democracy runs through a wasteland of oligarchy and autocracy.

No. The only way back to democracy leads through being defeated in war and being forced back into democracy by the victors. That's what happened to Italy and Germany after WWII. Well, or to France after the French and Prussian war.

 

Sadly, we live in a world with nuclear weapons and where the US has both the best-funded military in the world and is basically unassailable due to its continental isolation. It's not going to happen that way.