US politics - Yes country for old men

[Argonath Diver]

Hey I definitely wish we as a nation could change the minds of ~180 million complete assholes, but before your call for a fundamental change to our entire government, let's just get the one old guy who isn't a dictator-in-waiting elected first. I'm absolutely with you in that I dream of a truly progressive America that catapults our grandkids into space and an ecologically stable Earth for generations, instead of our frightening trend toward a dystopian hellscape. But let's just make sure voters understand how important it is to not get Trump elected first!

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ve been saying that we need to reform the US Government for a very long time.  I simply do not understand how declaring “fascism has already won” is in any way helpful or is anything but defeatist whining?

Deck chairs on the titanic if you keep political parties at the core of elected govt.

[Zorral]

https://bsky.app/profile/katzonearth.bsky.social/post/3kn743pb4vk2d

You all know about Britt out-and-out lying, everywhere and on tv, in her response to the President's SOTU speech, with that sex trafficking fairy tale -- which if it happened, happened in Mexico, while GWBush was in office, right?  Why isn't the blob media trumpeting this to the skies of the blob receptors?

[Zorral]

My opinion, formed from years of reading, listening and seeing media, from, when, back in the day, Clinton 'reformed' the communicaations laws, rules and regs, radio and print newspapers, to television and gaming in online and digital formats -- is that the many and varied medias have been and now are the gateways to hatreds, conspiracy, anti-science, anti-history and fascism and dominionism.

Along with PACS, and corporate funding of campaigns and candidates.

It's tragic to have watched journalism, which was our great watchdog for fairness, equality and facts, turn into shills for all the monies in haters, traitors and nutjobs' pockets.

Currently there are many books documenting how the media, particullarly radio, was utllized to bring Hitler to power. A book just now published and reviewed in the current NY Times, documents a current broadcaster on the side of Ukraine's resistence to engulfment, studied how the nazis did it, and is trying to do just the opposite, to counter Russia and Putin.  For some reason, this tablet won't let me me c&paste link or anything from the piece.

Edited March 9 by Zorral

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Deck chairs on the titanic if you keep political parties at the core of elected govt.

I appreciate that point.  Particularly with “first past the post” as the rule in most jurisdictions.  That said we have to get past this election to continue to have an opportunity to reform anything.  

Beat Trump and his fascist allies then reform the process to make it more difficult for vocal minorities to hijack the existing system.  

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, Argonath Diver said:

Hey I definitely wish we as a nation could change the minds of ~180 million complete assholes, but before your call for a fundamental change to our entire government, let's just get the one old guy who isn't a dictator-in-waiting elected first. I'm absolutely with you in that I dream of a truly progressive America that catapults our grandkids into space and an ecologically stable Earth for generations, instead of our frightening trend toward a dystopian hellscape. But let's just make sure voters understand how important it is to not get Trump elected first!

This is all true.  Im interested in hearing, after the election I guess, how we are going to ever have an election that's any different?  

Because what seems like it's going to happen is, best case scenario, the Dems get the presidency and both houses (lol) and spend 8 months making very minor tweaks to one or two of the many escalating problems. 

They'll slow the growth of increasing medical costs, but not actually be able to reduce them.  

Or they'll get some kind of temporary tax cut for people who have 2 or more kids, make $48-49k a year or less than $6 or more than $390000, but its only good for two years and you have to reapply every 4 months.  

They'll try to make a national law legalizing abortion but it's going to fail because we really need The New Joe Manchin Punching Bag to get elected next time around 

They're going to talk about wanting to do more, but there's going to be some obstacles, a  Parliamentarian or the Exchequer of Doom or the Whitehouse Sewer Gorgon or some such shit, and all the establishment Dem legislators are going to wring their hands and get real emotional about how they just wish the people in charge could do something.  And then in two years one of the houses is going to flip and nothing's going to happen except giving the Pentagon more money than they ask for and a new campaign.

And then someone is going to say "damn, I wish we could get out of this cycle." And they're going to be told to shut up until after the next election, and that they're entitled and they should be grateful for what they have, or that if they abstain from voting or vote [third] party they are effectively cannibalizing orphans.  

Yes, this is a dramatic and hyperbolic description.  

But let's be honest, the Dems and their biggest supporters have absolutely no fucking clue on how to fix this shit cycle*.  It's a race to the bottom, and we're going to be having this same conversation every single time.  

Edit:* in fact they have an active interest in not fixing it. 

Edited March 9 by Larry of the Lawn

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I appreciate that point.  Particularly with “first past the post” as the rule in most jurisdictions.  That said we have to get past this election to continue to have an opportunity to reform anything.  

Beat Trump and his fascist allies then reform the process to make it more difficult for vocal minorities to hijack the existing system.  

How do we do the second part?  Congress can't get 60 senate votes for anything other than beefing up the Pentagon.  Were probably never going to have another constitutional amendment.  What's the actual plan?  Getting rid of first past the post might help.  How does that realistically happen?

[Zorral]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/mar/03/among-the-trolls-my-journey-through-conspiracyland-marianna-spring-review

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

44 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

How do we do the second part?  Congress can't get 60 senate votes for anything other than beefing up the Pentagon.  Were probably never going to have another constitutional amendment.  What's the actual plan?  Getting rid of first past the post might help.  How does that realistically happen?

With difficulty.  Changing entrenched institutions is always difficult.  But if we give up saying such workis impossible to accomplish… it will never happen.

I would respectfully suggest working to institute ranked choice voting in local elections might be a start.  Get people comfortable with the idea and work from their to remove “First Past The Post” as the common election method. Then move up the chain.  Alaska has ranked choice voting (for example) and localities and States don’t require Constitutional Amendments to change how they run their local elections.

I’m not claiming this will be easy or a panecea.  Or that there aren’t any other alternatives.  I’m suggesting that continuing to say “change is impossible” will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

Edited March 9 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[kissdbyfire]

48 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

How do we do the second part?  Congress can't get 60 senate votes for anything other than beefing up the Pentagon.  Were probably never going to have another constitutional amendment.  What's the actual plan?  Getting rid of first past the post might help.  How does that realistically happen?

All conservative justices get on a plane to go to some conference and the plane crashes and burns. 
 

ETA: alternatively, not to count on a fateful accident, reform SCOTUS. What’s the thing I keep hearing about that there are 9 justices b/c that’s how many appeals courts there were but now it’s 13? 

Edited March 9 by kissdbyfire

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

36 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

All conservative justices get on a plane to go to some conference and the plane crashes and burns. 
 

ETA: alternatively, not to count on a fateful accident, reform SCOTUS. What’s the thing I keep hearing about that there are 9 justices b/c that’s how many appeals courts there were but now it’s 13? 

I don’t mind the idea of increasing the number of Justices.  But… we need to strip as much politics out as possible.  10-15 year single terms for Justices.  Stop allowing the President to pick them with Senatorial confirmation.  Allow the Bar and Judiciary to create an “exam”.  Allow people with prior judicial experience to take the exam. If they pass then randomly select people from that pool.  

Enact and enforce a serious code of ethics for Justices and get serious about removing Justices who violate that code.

This will not be perfect or a pancea either… all Human created structures can and will be abused… but… hopefully it will make the existing structure better.

Edited March 9 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[Centrist Simon Steele]

7 hours ago, Argonath Diver said:

Hey I definitely wish we as a nation could change the minds of ~180 million complete assholes, but before your call for a fundamental change to our entire government, let's just get the one old guy who isn't a dictator-in-waiting elected first. I'm absolutely with you in that I dream of a truly progressive America that catapults our grandkids into space and an ecologically stable Earth for generations, instead of our frightening trend toward a dystopian hellscape. But let's just make sure voters understand how important it is to not get Trump elected first!

I'm a socialist, and I legitimately don't mind Biden--he's been the best democratic president in my life, but you're saying what we've been hearing since 2016.

At some point this whole, "let's get past this one more election" wears thin for voters the democrats need. I think the same advice applies to them (the old-school liberal leadership): "you want to cling to your power and corruption, but you're going to have to let it go before Trump gets elected again." 

[Bironic]

6 hours ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

How do we do the second part?  Congress can't get 60 senate votes for anything other than beefing up the Pentagon.  Were probably never going to have another constitutional amendment.  What's the actual plan?  Getting rid of first past the post might help.  How does that realistically happen?

Well there are things you can do without a constitutional amendment (which I agree is such a high bar that is simply not realistic atm). Change first past the post, change the number of supreme court justices, get rid off citizens united, get rid off filibuster, get rid off gerrymandering, get rid off partisan primaries, reenact the civil rights & voting rights act, support the interstate compact that circumvents the electoral college, enact an actual federal election/voting law, (increase the power of the VP, decrease the power of the speaker, maybe enact federal ballot initiatives if that's constitutional)... some of that can be done by simple laws/elections passed by congress/president, some of it can be done by ballot initiatives... it's hard to do but is imho possible...

And if the supremes really rule that presidents are immune, Biden should give them some of their own medicine and remove them from office and do all the other stuff that needs to be done...

Edited March 9 by Bironic

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Bironic said:

And if the supremes really rule that presidents are immune,

I will be legitimately floored if that is how they go.

[Wilbur]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

...I would respectfully suggest working to institute ranked choice voting in local elections might be a start...

Is the idea of ranked choice becoming an item of discussion in the nation's political circles?

The reason I ask is that my local district (4) GOP leadership has turned over completely to Trumpists, and they have sent out a text blast to all the Republican party voters on the LD4 rolls last week.

The text is pretty amateur hour, as it doesn't call for action, it doesn't ask for donations, and it doesn't recommend voting for a specific candidate.  It just complains about ranked choice voting.

I can't find any sort of proposed legislation in the Arizona house or senate related to ranked choice, it isn't a topic on our Maricopa County elections volunteer forum, and I haven't read any media talking about it outside occasional mentions in this thread.  The only place I had heard about it was this tantrum of a text last week, which provided me with my daily recommended allowance of exclamation marks for the rest of the year.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

At some point this whole, "let's get past this one more election" wears thin for voters the democrats need. I think the same advice applies to them (the old-school liberal leadership): "you want to cling to your power and corruption, but you're going to have to let it go before Trump gets elected again." 

Not picking on Simon but this, for me, sums up the problem.

There is no division here. 'The voters the Democrats need' makes it sound like these voters are passive, an unshaped mass that is separate to the party and therefore not part of the solution. That's flat wrong.

Those voters are part of 'the Democrats'. If they don't like their choices, they need to change them. Policies, candidates, processes. Starting tomorrow and continuing for years to come.

If 'the voters the Democrats need' are sitting waiting for 'the Democrats' to give them what they want, they're part of the problem as much as the party higher-ups are.

Trump is vile, but he has power because he inspired a lot of his voters to get involved in the Republican party at lower levels. But it is not up to the higher levels of the Democrat party to go out and find a unique individual who can do the same. That's like asking them to come up with magic beans. The boring truth of the matter is that the party can't (not won't) do better until the voters do the work.

And it's way too late to do that now. The candidates in this election are already picked. If you think there's any way to ditch Biden that's not an electoral catastrophe, you're kidding yourself. But you can get involved now if you want to see a better candidate in 2028, or 2032. If you don't change things, you can't expect change.

[DMC]

10 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Deck chairs on the titanic if you keep political parties at the core of elected govt.

mormont did a great job explaining this but imma take a break from failing poor community college students to explain my absolute confusion at this remark -- when are political parties NOT at the core of elected government? 

Frankly, if they're not, that's a much bigger problem.  You can ban all political parties outright, I suppose, but the only countries that do that are literally absolute monarchies.  Perhaps the GOP should be banned due to their now near-unmitigated support for a soft-coup, I suppose, but that's not going to have the effect those that want that are seeking.

Name me an industrialized democracy that doesn't have political parties at the core of their elected government?  You can't, because political parties are an inherent part of democracy.  The Federalist Papers were genius - all the "double security" talk about dealing with the effect and not the causes of factions and whatnot. 

But as Madison states in #10, "liberty is to faction as air is to fire."  In other words, freedom among the electorate necessarily means we're going to have political parties.  (The fact Madison and Hamilton apparently didn't recognize this in their arguments for ratification and then within a decade literally created the first two party system of the US opposed to each other is of course amusing and unfortunate, but decidedly academic.)

I'm not trying to be obtuse about this criticism.  I understand the argument is if we change the institutional rules - i.e. employing a PR system rather than single-member plurality systems that almost always lead to a two-party system according to Duverger's Law - that such changes would materialize, and we wouldn't get two old fucks most of the country doesn't like as our only choices for president.

Maybe that's the case, but it wouldn't solve the root of the problem.  Institutional rules can only go so far.  The reason the two main political parties keep on spitting out nominees many of their own party aren't satisfied with is because that's where their constituency is at.

Whether it be national, state, or local, you get the candidates your voters want.  And while a PR system may have a bottom-up impact on this, ultimately when it comes to a presidential election, it'd be the case whether we had a two or three or five or nine party system.  And empirics/history clearly indicate the latter two would lead to more instability in the polity than we already have.

So..this may seem like I'm against PR systems (I'm not), or that I'm saying we're fucked either way (I'm kinda), but the takeaway should be that it's up to the American electorate.  Political efficacy is I know a lame thing to talk about, but fact of the matter is that's how things change.  And that's how things HAVE changed!  Horribly, on the right, but also on the left.

Just in my adult life, you think the Democratic Party of 2004 would be as left-leaning as it is today on a host of policy issues?  That shift is due to people getting involved.  I know it's cool on the internet to blame institutional rules, and I also know the person I'm technically responding to lives in New Zealand, but over the next eight months if you want things to change -- get involved.  You'll be surprised how much people will actually pay attention to you.

[Ser Reptitious]

Welcome back! 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Glad you have your full posting privileges restored. You know what's coming now...

How do Florida Students learn to count to 7, while also covering most of Florida culture?

One bible, Two sexes, Three teeth, Four beer, Five bucks, Six brain cells, Seven Letters. F-L-O-R-I-D-A.

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

How do Florida Students learn to count to 7, while also covering most of Florida culture?

#NotAllFloridians, but I have 110% confidence the vast majority of my students at a Tampa community college could kick the shit out of most of y'all when it comes to political discussions. 

Moreover, demographically the student body actually reflects the United States - which you don't get (at least as much) at certain other states/areas that aren't derided.  

Anyway, I appreciate the welcome back messages - I really, very much do, I love y'all! - but let's direct them to PM.  Be happy to respond there.  If you wanna respond here, respond to the relevant discussion.