US Politics: The Day After The Political Earthquake

[kuenjato]

GOP should definitely do that.

The Dems would if the situations were reversed, they play for keeps.

I think this statement is lodged in some sort of bizarro-world, given the absolute dithering and bend-over-backwards we've seen from the Democrat party in the last six years in the face of belligerent, brinkmanship, socioeconomic terrorism that has characterized the Republican party. Nice to know you approve of voter manipulation schemes as long as your party gets in first, I'll remember that next time you or some conservative starts bleating about singular cases of voter fraud & spin it as a hidden epidemic.

[TrackerNeil]

GOP should definitely do that.

The Dems would if the situations were reversed, they play for keeps.

Really? Then I assume you can link to articles that describe Democratic attempts to do this? After all, they do control some states, and are capable of it.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

In fact, instead of trying to manipulate the electoral college to harm their opponents, Democrats in many states have supported the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

[TrackerNeil]

In fact, instead of trying to manipulate the electoral college to harm their opponents, Democrats in many states have supported the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Man, but the day that the # reaches 270, you know Republicans will run to the federal courts for a little conservative judicial activism.

[sToNED_CAT]

Man, but the day that the # reaches 270, you know Republicans will run to the federal courts for a little conservative judicial activism.

Why? Popular vote is actually quite advantageous for Republican party. No need to worry about losing Hispanic vote in some important swing states.

[TrackerNeil]

Why? Popular vote is actually quite advantageous for Republican party. No need to worry about losing Hispanic vote in some important swing states.

Given that the Republicans lost the popular vote in three of the four past elections, I'll take that bet.

[Wee baby Shamus]

If you have information or a source which contradicts the empirical evidence from the article I linked, please present it. Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.

As for allowing legal tax paying permanent residents to vote, I appeal only to that patriotic principle, "No taxation without representation." Why do you hate freedom, the founders, and America?

There are plenty of people here who are here illegally and they pay state and federal taxes with fake Social Security numbers.

Sorry but this is a public board so I won't shut the fuck up. But since I am writing and not talking it doesn't matter now does it?

[sToNED_CAT]

Given that the Republicans lost the popular vote in three of the four past elections, I'll take that bet.

Their losses in electoral college were even bigger (the exception being 2000). EC system was favorable to Dems in last 3 presidential elections.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/

[MerenthaClone]

There are plenty of people here who are here illegally and they pay state and federal taxes with fake Social Security numbers.

...yes, and his point is that they are being taxed without being represented.

[Wee baby Shamus]

...yes, and his point is that they are being taxed without being represented.

If people who are here legally and permanently and choose not to become citizens then they shouldn't be able to vote.

[Maltaran]

There are certain non-UK citizens* who are allowed to vote in our general elections, and it hasn't destroyed the country.

*specifically, Irish citizens and citizens of Commonwealth nations who are resident in the UK

[MerenthaClone]

If people who are here legally and permanently and choose not to become citizens then they shouldn't be able to vote.

I don't think you fully understand how hard it is to become a US citizen.

http://keatingsdesk.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/immigration-chart.jpg

[TrueMetis]

There are plenty of people here who are here illegally and they pay state and federal taxes with fake Social Security numbers.

Sorry but this is a public board so I won't shut the fuck up. But since I am writing and not talking it doesn't matter now does it?

I'm not sure wtf this is supposed to mean, because people who are in the country illegally sometimes pay taxes without representation those who are there legally should do the same?

If people who are here legally and permanently and choose not to become citizens then they shouldn't be able to vote.

Right because becoming a US citizen is so easy.

[TerraPrime]

GOP should definitely do that.

The Dems would if the situations were reversed, they play for keeps.

Sending troops to Iraq a few days after the election is about as cynical as it gets.

No wait, a mass executive amnesty after the election is worse.

You, like Screw_you_creepo, are getting the same talking poitns, apparently. Obama has been sending troops to the region to assist in the fight against ISIS since August. Fixating on "Iraq" is a silly antic. Congress has had months to call a meeting to authorize, or not, the use of military forces in the region concerning the fight against ISIS but they refused to for fear of the optics in the election. TRM has been harping on this for months now, at least since October, about this limbo of authorization in the use of military forces in the region.

Re: SYC

If people who are here legally and permanently and choose not to become citizens then they shouldn't be able to vote.

You apparently don't know much about naturalization. It takes 5 years for someone to have the permanent resident status before that person is allowed to naturalize as a citizen, or 3 years if that someone gained the permanent resident status through marriage. During that period, 5 years or 3 years, that person is paying U.S. taxes at all levels and not allowed to vote. They couldn't opt to naturalize even if they wanted to because the law prohibits it.

From the USCIS Path to Citizenship site:

Eligibility Requirements

If you are a green card holder of at least 5 years, you must meet the following requirements in order to apply for naturalization:

- Be 18 or older at the time of filing

- Be a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization

- Have lived within the state, or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence, for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing the application

- Have continuous residence in the United States as a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application

- Be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application

- Reside continuously within the United States from the date of application for naturalization up to the time of naturalization

- Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).

- Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law

[Commodore]

6 bills the GOP should pass

[Wise Fool]

6 bills the GOP should pass

Not sure about no.5, but overall, sounds sensible.

Chances the GOP would ever do these things? They want to win in 2016, and pot and alcohol laws are traditional amongst the Family Values demographics.

[karaddin]

6 bills the GOP should pass

Amazingly I straight up agree with 50% of those. Of the remaining 3 I agree with doing something about copyright and the DMCA however I'd be very cautious about what replaces it - so it's not unqualified support, it needs to actually make things better. I also agree with doing something about governance into lobbying career track, I'm not sure the specific proposal is the way to go (I'm not sure it's not either, I don't know enough about your system to have an opinion), so once again it's about ensuring that what is done is better than what there is now. In Australia I'd like politicians to lose their pension if they go into lobbying - the whole point of the pension is so they don't need to, which doesn't address staffers but it's a start.

5 is the only one I straight up disagree with.

[Ormond]

The marijuana -- and probably the drinking age -- are extremely unlikely to be passed by the GOP because the opposition within their own base would be fierce.

I'm not sure about the birth control pills. I would worry that selling hormonal medications like this over the counter would lead to a lot of medical problems and abuse.

I very much don't want the length of copyright increased any further but don't care much about its being reduced from what it is now. And I very much like the aspect of the present law which makes sure copyright extends at least through the life of the creator. I think people should have the right to be compensated for the use of their creative work until their deaths. I would support a big limitation on the ability of people to sell their copyrights to someone else.

I don't agree with the anti-public-sector-union thing.

As for the revolving door tax, this would be completely unfair unless it also applied to Congress itself and not just people who work in the executive branch. I would be for it if it included Congress, but very against it if it did not. And I think the chance of the Republicans passing such a bill that included Congress among those who would get this surtax is even less than the chance of them passing marijuana reform.

[Shryke]

I'm not sure about the birth control pills. I would worry that selling hormonal medications like this over the counter would lead to a lot of medical problems and abuse.

The medical concensus afaik is that they are in favour of it.

Of course, another concensus is that the GOP push for OCT birth-control is just a stealth anti-BC tactic so that they can then take BC off insurance plans.

[TrueMetis]

I very much don't want the length of copyright increased any further but don't care much about its being reduced from what it is now. And I very much like the aspect of the present law which makes sure copyright extends at least through the life of the creator. I think people should have the right to be compensated for the use of their creative work until their deaths. I would support a big limitation on the ability of people to sell their copyrights to someone else.

Current set up means there are several creative works in a sort of limbo with no one knowing who they belong to. Which has lead to several works being straight up lost. This also happens with works that don't make money, they're copyrighted so no one but the owner can make new ones, but the owner doesn't because they wouldn't make money off it. This happened with Doctor Who episodes, but were saved partially by homemade recordings off episodes. I'm much prefer the older 28 year limit.