US Politics: Sitting in Judgement

[karaddin]

I'm a big fan of compulsory voting so there's one thing that I think would improve NZ's system. I think there would be issues with the proportional model if we tried to do it in Australia, but they're mostly relating to our very large geography with population so heavily focused in the major cities and I'm not sure they're applicable to NZ. I think most of those concerns (for Australia) could be mitigated by having multi-seat electorates and then using proportional within those electorates but one draw back of that would be needing to have a lot more seats and therefore it being more expensive than the current model.

I was thinking after reading this thread earlier that the real issue is all the democracies are essentially "1st generation" in the sense that none of them have had a major overhaul and upgrade based on a prior-democratic system in the same country. Or at least that's true for all that I'm aware of and thinking about, which is admittedly heavily dominated by the anglosphere.  Maybe we'll start seeing some improvements once someone takes the big jump of doing that.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Just my personal view, but any democracy that involves 1) political parties and 2) private campaign financing can only ever be C tier at best.

New Zealand still has systemic racism and sexism, chronic intergenerational poverty, homelessness and housing affordability crises, high rates of youth suicide, severe and systemic inequality in access to education, creaking and crumbling infrastructure and paralysis on meaningful climate change action. But I will grant you we do have more than 2 political parties in parliament.

To me most of these issues are not problems with democracy, they're problems with capitalism. 

[polishgenius]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

To me most of these issues are not problems with democracy, they're problems with capitalism. 

 

They're just problems with people. People are bastards. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

To me most of these issues are not problems with democracy, they're problems with capitalism. 

A good democracy establishes government that guarantees the long term welfare and well being of all the people regardless of the economic system. A good economic system demands little of a govt to ensure those guarantees because it delivers most of them automatically, a bad economic system demands a lot from the govt to ensure those guarantees.

So, capitalism demands a lot from govt because it fails so many people in so many ways, current forms of democracy are incapable of delivering the required government.

Also, while labour exploitation is a feature, not a bug, of capitalism systemic racism and sexism are not inherent to it. Those are holdovers from days of yore before capitalism existed let alone became the dominant economic system. What capitalism has done is (in the case of the USA) brought large numbers of white men low, which gives vested interests cover to deny the ongoing effects of systemic racism and sexism.

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

I'm a big fan of compulsory voting so there's one thing that I think would improve NZ's system. I think there would be issues with the proportional model if we tried to do it in Australia, but they're mostly relating to our very large geography with population so heavily focused in the major cities and I'm not sure they're applicable to NZ. I think most of those concerns (for Australia) could be mitigated by having multi-seat electorates and then using proportional within those electorates but one draw back of that would be needing to have a lot more seats and therefore it being more expensive than the current model.

I was thinking after reading this thread earlier that the real issue is all the democracies are essentially "1st generation" in the sense that none of them have had a major overhaul and upgrade based on a prior-democratic system in the same country. Or at least that's true for all that I'm aware of and thinking about, which is admittedly heavily dominated by the anglosphere.  Maybe we'll start seeing some improvements once someone takes the big jump of doing that.

Why not fully hijack the US Pol thread, even if just for a moment? New Zealand generally has a fairly high voter participation rate and it has compulsory voter registration (so no one can dick around trying to purge rolls). With 80%+ voter turn out in the general election being the historical norm, and 90%+ happening a number of times, though the last time was 1984. Also there has been no history of significant attempts at voter intimidation. So compulsory voting in New Zealand is kind of a solution looking for a problem. It could be a solution to a significant problem in the USA though with 2020 being a rather historical high with 67% participation. New Zealand has only dipped below 70% once since 1890.

Strangely since MMP was brought in voter turnout has been on a downward trend, which you would think the opposite would happen because in theory in MMP every vote counts (though that's not strictly true) so people should be more motivated to vote. Though perhaps what we're seeing is a general voter malaise as they increasingly see neither left nor right govts really being capable of serving the interests of the people...which takes me back to my point about no democracy being better than C tier

Edited February 16 by The Anti-Targ

[Bironic]

There are problems within all democracies but some have definitely a better setup than others, while none is perfect obviously. In the USA you have things like the senate, the electoral college, the Supreme court, private political donations, gerrymandering, first past the post, voter disenfranchisement etc. that create a sub-par democracy compared to NZ as has been posted before (I don't think the NZ system is anywhere near perfect though).

But in the end the reason why issues like poverty, homelessness, environmental pollution, racism etc. remain are people. If you fail to convince a majority of the voters that we should address those problems, nothing will change. It's a bit like the Batman quote: we have the governments we deserve, not the ones we need...

[kissdbyfire]

So now they’re grilling Fani Willis’s father and… what? I mean, shouldn’t the judge have done something by now? It’s all so weird and kind of gross. 

[Maithanet]

After flirting with a No Labels run for month, Joe Manchin has finally announced he will not be running for President.  I had always thought this is what he'd do, since a No Labels run would have no chance whatsoever of winning and a very realistic chance of handing the election to Trump.  In spite of all the headaches he's caused liberals, he still knows that Biden is vastly preferable to Trump.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

So now they’re grilling Fani Willis’s father and… what? I mean, shouldn’t the judge have done something by now? It’s all so weird and kind of gross. 

He's held up well. And importantly he confirmed that he always told her to keep a good amount of cash on her. The relationship isn't really the underlying problem for Willis, it's the question of if she was using it to pocket public funds. So far that hasn't been proven. It's interest how from my perspective this started out looking bad for her to sounding like a relatively normal situation. 

 

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

He's held up well.
 

I thought so as well. And he came across as nice and polite, ‘good morning, counsel, how are you?’ and so on. Also, the lawyers doing the questioning (or whatever the right legalese word is) keep coming across as sort of unprepared or… worse? Like, they keep ‘asking’ stuff but not phrasing it as a question? It happened a lot yesterday as well. 

4 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And importantly he confirmed that he always told her to keep a good amount of cash on her.

Yes, that was very good and also came across as reliable testimony imo. Like when he said to the judge something along the lines of, ‘excuse me, I don’t mean to sound racist but…’ and then explained why this is a habit that many black people have and why they have the habit, and even told the story about when he was in Massachusetts and they wouldn’t accept his credit cards etc. Oh, and how he’s always told her to have always cash in case she felt like ditching a date or whatever, something my father used to tell me too. 

4 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

The relationship isn't really the underlying problem for Willis, it's the question of if she was using it to pocket public funds.

I understand this would be the big issue that can disqualify her, but it never really rang true for me? Maybe I’m naive, but she seems like a very intelligent woman, and I find it hard to believe someone in her position and with this mega case in her hands would jeopardise everything for a few thousand dollars? I know people can be smart and still do incredibly stupid stuff, but still, I don’t buy it. Especially w/ the level of scrutiny she knew she’d be under.

4 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

So far that hasn't been proven. It's interest how from my perspective this started out looking bad for her to sounding like a relatively normal situation. 

Yeah, and given how things usually go when trumpy lawyers are involved, there’s a greater than zero chance it will end with them looking like a bunch of idiots. Fingers crossed!

[Zorral]

15 hours ago, karaddin said:

I was thinking after reading this thread earlier that the real issue is all the democracies are essentially "1st generation" in the sense that none of them have had a major overhaul and upgrade based on a prior-democratic system in the same country. Or at least that's true for all that I'm aware of and thinking about, which is admittedly heavily dominated by the anglosphere.  Maybe we'll start seeing some improvements once someone takes the big jump of doing that.

On Scalzi's blog someone else commented in a way that sounds a great deal like what you have written, though provoked by a different disaster-event:

Quote

 

This is a valuable lesson, not only for the Hugos but for everyone: if your organization runs on customs and traditions and assumptions of good behaviour (as opposed to unambiguous and set-in-stone set of rules), then it’s only a matter of time before somebody comes along and abuses that informal culture, and then do as much damage as they can get away with.

Dave did that with the 2023 Hugos. Trump did that during his entire presidency. There are plenty of other examples of well-meaning organizations that got absolutely shattered (if not outright destroyed) by those who abuse such ambiguity.

 

https://whatever.scalzi.com/2024/02/15/the-2023-hugo-fraud-and-where-we-go-from-here/#comment-931475

 

[Rippounet]

16 hours ago, karaddin said:

I was thinking after reading this thread earlier that the real issue is all the democracies are essentially "1st generation" in the sense that none of them have had a major overhaul and upgrade based on a prior-democratic system in the same country. Or at least that's true for all that I'm aware of and thinking about, which is admittedly heavily dominated by the anglosphere.  Maybe we'll start seeing some improvements once someone takes the big jump of doing that.

France has had 5 republics/constitutions, and we're not doing any better than other demoracies.

The real issue imho is that the combination of representative democracy and capitalism inevitably leads to a slow degradation of the common interest through corruption/lobbying. It's pretty much inevitable, and then you get a mix of populist and reactionary movements.
Since this is the US politics thread, I'll posit that the anti-federalists actually had it right: the public interest is better served through local government/institutions. In fact, the same goes for corporations: any organization that's on scale that allows it to avoid transparency and accountability will sooner or later become a threat to the people.
 

[Tywin et al.]

Damn, $364M is a fuck ton. I didn't expect it to be anywhere near the high end. They didn't get a lifetime business ban, but three years for Trump and two for the kids is brutal. 

 

[Zorral]

Shared link --

The ruling in Donald J. Trump’s civil fraud case could cost him all his available cash. The judge said that the former president’s “complete lack of contrition” bordered on pathological.

Only 'bordered'?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/nyregion/trump-civil-fraud-trial-ruling.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V00.RXii.scZamhv2B7aL&smid=url-share

Only barred for three years?  And his sons for two?  Should have been forever.  (Donnie and what's his name are also liable for 4 million each.)

It of course shall be appealed.

"But there might be little Mr. Trump can do to thwart one of the judge’s most consequential punishments: extending for three years the appointment of an independent monitor who will be the court’s eyes and ears at the Trump Organization, watching for fraud and second-guessing transactions that look suspicious."

Quote

 

.... Mr. Trump will appeal the financial penalty — which could climb to $400 million or more once interest is added — but will have to either come up with the money or secure a bond within 30 days. The ruling will not render him bankrupt, because most of his wealth is tied up in real estate. ....

.... But there might be little Mr. Trump can do to thwart one of the judge’s most consequential punishments: extending for three years the appointment of an independent monitor who will be the court’s eyes and ears at the Trump Organization, watching for fraud and second-guessing transactions that look suspicious.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers have railed against the monitor, Barbara Jones, saying that her work has already cost the business more than $2.5 million; the decision to extend her oversight of the privately held family company could enrage the Trumps, who see her presence as an irritant and an insult. ....

... And the civil fraud ruling comes as Manhattan prosecutors are set to try Mr. Trump on criminal charges late next month. He is also contending with 57 other felony counts across three other criminal cases.

But none of his legal troubles seem to have anguished Mr. Trump quite like the fraud case. During the trial, he protested its premise, pleading, “This has been a persecution of somebody that’s done a good job in New York.” 

 

 

Edited February 16 by Zorral

[TrackerNeil]

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

After flirting with a No Labels run for month, Joe Manchin has finally announced he will not be running for President.  I had always thought this is what he'd do, since a No Labels run would have no chance whatsoever of winning and a very realistic chance of handing the election to Trump.  In spite of all the headaches he's caused liberals, he still knows that Biden is vastly preferable to Trump.

I sometimes feel that these third parties who insist upon running presidential campaigns are really just running a scam. They know they cannot win, and they know they are really assisting one side or another, but they doggedly push their candidates anyway.

I don't quite understand the enmity that lefties have for Joe Manchin. I mean, does anyone think West Virginia is going to produce a radical queer socialist senator? Or the Elizabeth Warren of the South? Joe Manchin is infinitely better than any Republican that WV would likely produce, so I think we'd all do well to appreciate him while we have him.

Edited February 16 by TrackerNeil

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I sometimes feel that these third parties who insist upon running presidential campaigns are really just running a scam. They know they cannot win, and they know they are really assisting one side or another, but they doggedly push their candidates anyway.

I don't quite understand the enmity that lefties have for Joe Manchin. I mean, does anyone think West Virginia is going to produce a radical queer socialist senator? Or the Elizabeth Warren of the South? Joe Manchin is infinitely better than any Republican that WV would likely produce, so I think we'd all do well to appreciate him while we have him.

There's a difference between just being a Dem from a conservative state who just barely won re-election in 2018 and likely needed to vote to confirm Kavanaugh to do so, and what Manchin did in 2021 trolling everyone on the BBB shit.

I see a lot more anger towards Sinema, who unlike Manchin is not the best Dems could hope for her state to produce.  

Eta: and while it's probably as unrealistic for West Virginia to elect A socialist senator as anywhere else, maybe they could do better than Manchin.  Ohio elected Sherrod Brown comfortably in 2018.  

Edited February 16 by Larry of the Lawn

[Tywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I sometimes feel that these third parties who insist upon running presidential campaigns are really just running a scam. They know they cannot win, and they know they are really assisting one side or another, but they doggedly push their candidates anyway.

It is a scam. If they actually cared they would do what someone like Sanders has done, however you feel about his politics. Third parties only work at the lowest levels and even then members should often join one of the two major parties and try to change them.

[Zorral]

What is the Actual Third Party Threat to Biden?

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/02/what-is-the-actual-third-party-threat-to-biden

Quote

 

... Michigan has a large Islamic population that is very angry at the president and Wisconsin is so close that it Biden must win Madison by a lot to win that state. If Cornel West or someone like him can get on the ballot, it could throw those states to Trump.

Now, I want to caution everyone here–I don’t think it’s helpful to state how stupid these voters are. That’s even if they are being stupid. I mean, I agree with everyone that you need a holistic view of the election and that there are two realistic choices. And of course as bad as Biden is on Israel/Palestine, Trump is even worse. But we also have to recognize something else, which is that a whole lot of voters–and they lean all ways and include most centrists–are pretty clueless about how politics work and also want to remain clueless about it so they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. So that’s a tough one. This is how you get Obama-Trump voters, basically. So you can say they are idiots all you want. But it is also the job of the candidate to produce policies that voters favor. And in those very specific contexts of Michigan and Wisconsin politics, Biden might be blowing it big time. Given that all that matters in American presidential politics is 7 or 8 states, it really does matter. 

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

There's a difference between just being a Dem from a conservative state who just barely won re-election in 2018 and likely needed to vote to confirm Kavanaugh to do so, and what Manchin did in 2021 trolling everyone on the BBB shit.

I see a lot more anger towards Sinema, who unlike Manchin is not the best Dems could hope for her state to produce.  

Eta: and while it's probably as unrealistic for West Virginia to elect A socialist senator as anywhere else, maybe they could do better than Manchin.  Ohio elected Sherrod Brown comfortably in 2018.  

 

Good point on Brown.

Manchin had a history though of supporting party priorities and healthcare votes before this. It doesn't make the recent behavior better, but it's different than Sinema who has a short  history almost entirely of tanking both party and progressive goals.

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Damn, $364M is a fuck ton. I didn't expect it to be anywhere near the high end. They didn't get a lifetime business ban, but three years for Trump and two for the kids is brutal. 

 

Oh shit, first I saw the number dropped to $355M, but now NBC is saying with interest it's $453.5M. Not sure what is the right one, but the latter completely fucks him when you add in the $83M. And the kiddos have debts too, plus the legal fees for all of them. The house of cards is crashing down. By his own account he doesn't have that much money to even put up for appeal. $400M was the high mark, but it could often be a lot lower. Even if he starts selling assets he's going to get pennies on the dollar cause everyone can squeeze him and the dipshit invested in bad real estate ventures, specifically golf courses. He's going to get worked if these numbers hold up. 

Edited February 16 by Mr. Chatywin et al.

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Oh shit, first I saw the number dropped to $355M, but now NBC is saying with interest it's $453.5. Not sure what is the right one, but the latter completely fucks him when you add in the $83M. And the kiddos have debts too, plus the legal fees for all of them. The house of cards is crashing down. 

Poor Lara, she's gonna have to work extra hard at the RNC!