Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: A Feast for Crows

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

but worth it considering the upside that lots more states is the only way to definitely improve the senate. 

You could write a statute that allows states to maintain a supra-state entity overseeing the division for at least twenty years (with a possible extension of another twenty) to give them ample time to sort out the power, water, roads etc.

And you say Bureaucratic nightmare, and I hear, "major jobs program immune from robots and outsourcing."

The only way splitting states would work is if you had a minimum threshold that prevented states from continuing to break apart at a certain point.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing requiring that the senate have any actual power which can't be overridden by a normal amendment though, right? Like, you could in theory have all the states have representation in the senate, and the senate can do fuckall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gads you guyz and your determination that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez must put up with you shaking a finger in her face for something that -- sheesh.  You look bad, you guys, really bad.  

 Anyway, she's carrying on carrying on, rather than paying attention to your finger-shaking and begging to be forgiven.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/419775-ocasio-cortez-confirms-she-will-pay-interns-at-least-15-an-hour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Gads you guyz and your determination that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez must put up with you shaking a finger in her face for something that -- sheesh.  You look bad, you guys, really bad.  

 Anyway, she's carrying on carrying on, rather than paying attention to your finger-shaking and begging to be forgiven.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/419775-ocasio-cortez-confirms-she-will-pay-interns-at-least-15-an-hour

But she's brown like Venezuela!  And with policies like this she's going to turn America into Venezuela.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

A lot of them do care. The problem is that the ones who put little energy into studying policy are also the ones that love the camera, so we can get a distorted sense of reality. And while you were probably more qualified at 29 than many legislators, you're a statistical outlier, having a master's degree in the field and being a college professor at the time. I just looked up her bio and hell, I'm likely more qualified than her if you want to compare resumes. But yes, she is a better politician, obviously, because she won a seat in Congress while all I've ever won a seat in is the student government at my university. 

The reason her tweet was problematic to me is that it likely signals one of three things: She hasn't built her policy team yet, she has and didn't run it by them or she has, she did and they approved it. None of those are good scenarios. 

Re: the bolded?  Why is she less qualified than you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

As a result, the president has access to emergency powers contained in 123 statutory provisions, as recently calculated by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, where I work. These laws address a broad range of matters, from military composition to agricultural exports to public contracts. For the most part, the president is free to use any of them; the National Emergencies Act doesn’t require that the powers invoked relate to the nature of the emergency. Even if the crisis at hand is, say, a nationwide crop blight, the president may activate the law that allows the secretary of transportation to requisition any privately owned vessel at sea. Many other laws permit the executive branch to take extraordinary action under specified conditions, such as war and domestic upheaval, regardless of whether a national emergency has been declared.

This legal regime for emergencies—ambiguous constitutional limits combined with a rich well of statutory emergency powers—would seem to provide the ingredients for a dangerous encroachment on American civil liberties. Yet so far, even though presidents have often advanced dubious claims of constitutional authority, egregious abuses on the scale of the Japanese American internment or the post-9/11 torture program have been rare, and most of the statutory powers available during a national emergency have never been used.


But what’s to guarantee that this president, or a future one, will show the reticence of his predecessors? To borrow from Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent in Korematsu v. United States, the 1944 Supreme Court decision that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans, each emergency power “lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.”

 

What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency
From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lokisnow said:

I'd also support the following to happen: [snip]

This is a pretty compelling and well thought out plan as far as fantasy government goes.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The reason her tweet was problematic to me is that it likely signals one of three things: She hasn't built her policy team yet, she has and didn't run it by them or she has, she did and they approved it. None of those are good scenarios. 

My guess is the second.  Or at least I hope.  That does speak to the concern of overexposure, or at least what she can do to control it while retaining the accessibility that's a big part of her appeal.  I just think your first post came off as patronizing.  And the problem with saying the policy wonks are drowned out by the ones that love the camera is that a lot more members are more interested in the camera than becoming policy wonks these days (which of course is almost a requirement with how expensive campaigns have gotten).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

:P

You know the quote simply means that you should take your time and learn the ins and outs of it before you make waves, which is prudent advice at most jobs. 

Yeah, but that doesn’t mean I can’t give you shit about your word choice and phrasing, not to mention the full implications of what you’re saying, especially if imprecise words/factual grasp is what you were criticizing someone else for in the first place. ;)

I hope there’s no hard feelings though, despite probably being a little snarkier than intended, I didn’t mean any harm.

Edited by Paladin of Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This fits a familiar pattern. Trump ratchets up hostilities with foreign governments in an attempt to negotiate (or renegotiate) deals that are more favorable to the U.S. But then he agrees only to superficial changes, which he nonetheless presents as historic wins that only he could accomplish. It’s a reminder that his real skill as a businessman—and now a politician—was never in making deals, but in marketing himself as a dealmaker. While that proved effective on the campaign trail in 2016, it may come back to haunt him in 2020.

The Art of the Underwhelming Deal
Trump touts agreements with foreign leaders as historic accomplishments, but they're just rebranded versions of the status quo.

https://newrepublic.com/article/152498/trump-china-art-underwhelming-deal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency
From seizing control of the internet to declaring martial law, President Trump may legally do all kinds of extraordinary things.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

I feel like the Brennan Center has kind of lost their credibility after their "analysis" that Democrats needed at least an 11 or 12 point vote margin to take the House; which was immediately attacked by polling data folks and was extremely debunked by the actual election results. Last I saw, Democrats would've still had a, very slight, majority with about a 3.5% win.

Which is to say, its not that they don't have a point; gerrymandering is definitely bad and Democrats (and Republicans) should be able to have a House majority with a 1% win, if not less. But they exaggerate these points far beyond what's reasonable, to get more coverage; and it just looks pollyannaish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×