hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2752 of 2784 FirstFirst ... 1752225226522702274227492750275127522753275427552762 ... LastLast
Results 55,021 to 55,040 of 55671

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #55021
    Donor Pattern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Ok, so...US politics and governance makes no sense to me, so explain like i'm an idiot (not entirely inaccurate):
    What does losing the House actually mean in real terms for Trump?
    Not much in real terms given I'm not sure how more effective democrats will be at stonewalling things than republicans were (they were damn effective, even when they had all 3 houses of government). Isn't it still possible for minority house republicans to shutdown government on debt ceiling raises?
    Last edited by Pattern; November 7 2018 at 12:36:43 PM.

  2. #55022

    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    6,610
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Ok, so...US politics and governance makes no sense to me, so explain like i'm an idiot (not entirely inaccurate):
    What does losing the House actually mean in real terms for Trump?
    In most circumstances, not a huge amount. At the end of the day unless a party holds a supermajority in the senate (i.e. 60+), most legislation gets stalled there indefinitely. Where it gives the dems a significant boost is in three areas. The first is that the house has sole power to start revenue bills - they set yo tax. In other words you can expect the democrats to (attempt to) undo the recent self-destructive tax cuts; the senate can still amend these so this would still be a huge fight. The second is that they gain control of all of the house committees and all of the subpoena and investigative powers that come with them. In other words, you can expect the dems to engage in such critical issues of national importance such as seeing how much tax Trump actually paid. Third and perhaps most importantly, the speaker of the house has sole authority to set the business that the house considers. This means no legislation will hit the house floor that the dems don't want to hear.

    In theory they now also gain powers of impeachment, but I can't see a scenario where those are seriously used.
    Last edited by elmicker; November 7 2018 at 12:32:37 PM.

  3. #55023

    Join Date
    April 9, 2012
    Location
    Pit of depravity
    Posts
    7,253
    Makes sense, cheers mate.

  4. #55024
    dzajic's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 15, 2011
    Posts
    3,372
    In b4 holy Founding Fathers and holy Constitution. In b4 "its not a democracy, its a representative republic".

  5. #55025
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    7,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Ok, so...US politics and governance makes no sense to me, so explain like i'm an idiot (not entirely inaccurate):
    What does losing the House actually mean in real terms for Trump?
    He can't pass any more laws basically

  6. #55026

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    5,064
    The interaction between ownership of the house and the Muller investigation is also rather key.

    If Muller does have something on Trump and there is an attempt to shut him down, no after-the-fact restrictions placed on Muller can prevent him being forced (or rather protected) by a House subpoena directing him to reveal that information publicly.

  7. #55027
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,530
    The spin this morning and the overall election coverage may be the funniest thing I've listened to in years. Maximum Spinnage all around.



    To answer the above question re: Dems taking the House, it means:

    1. Mueller and that Investigation is likely safe as the House has ways they can protect him (maybe).

    2. The House will almost assuredly launch a number of investigations including a wide swath of subpoena's for Trump and Trump Campaign/Trump Administration records (like Trumps taxes, as an obvious example).

    3. They may try to Impeach him, even knowing it's a non-starter in the Senate (who would try the President in the case of impeachment).

    4. New passed legislation will be few and far between for the next two years, the Dems can block 100% of potential law via the House. They'd have to work together to pass anything now.

    5. The Federal Budget/spending may look quite different, since all spending authority starts and must pass the House. I'm hearing already that the return of "earmarks" is one result of this.

    6. There will be more push-back against Executive Actions and regulatory rollback, but perhaps not a ton the House can actually do alone to stop it (outside hearings and showmanship).

    I'm sure there are others I may be overlooking, but these are highlights. We're in Divided Government now, with all that entails. No more one-party rule (a good thing IMO).
    Last edited by Alistair; November 7 2018 at 02:00:45 PM.


  8. #55028

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Ok, so...US politics and governance makes no sense to me, so explain like i'm an idiot (not entirely inaccurate):
    What does losing the House actually mean in real terms for Trump?
    Losing the House means little when the Senate can sit back and claim 'we don't care, we already got two of 45's Judges on the Supreme Court.'

  9. #55029

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    So I don't have an "I voted" sticker to post (mainly because I didn't bring one home tonight), but I just got done being an election judge for the last two and a half weeks;
    feel free to ask any questions I might be able to answer.
    Which country paid you the most to rig the results? I'm assuming Russia doesn't actually pay much because it's hard to get money out of the country now..
    We aren't paid at all. Aside from the less than 20 full time employees in the election office, the thousands of people working the election are volunteers.
    We do get a stipend, but it's similar to getting paid for jury duty (you aren't going to get rich doing it.)

  10. #55030

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Caine View Post
    Ok, so...US politics and governance makes no sense to me, so explain like i'm an idiot (not entirely inaccurate):
    What does losing the House actually mean in real terms for Trump?
    In most circumstances, not a huge amount. At the end of the day unless a party holds a supermajority in the senate (i.e. 60+), most legislation gets stalled there indefinitely. Where it gives the dems a significant boost is in three areas. The first is that the house has sole power to start revenue bills - they set yo tax. In other words you can expect the democrats to (attempt to) undo the recent self-destructive tax cuts; the senate can still amend these so this would still be a huge fight. The second is that they gain control of all of the house committees and all of the subpoena and investigative powers that come with them. In other words, you can expect the dems to engage in such critical issues of national importance such as seeing how much tax Trump actually paid. Third and perhaps most importantly, the speaker of the house has sole authority to set the business that the house considers. This means no legislation will hit the house floor that the dems don't want to hear.

    In theory they now also gain powers of impeachment, but I can't see a scenario where those are seriously used.
    + they can impeach Trump with simple majority ( in senate they need 2/3 votes)

  11. #55031
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    11,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    Wow.

    I was wondering. How much would it cost to say, an alliance of super rich Californians to get a fuckload of voters and re-patriate them in low-population red precincts a month before the election? What's the legal basis for voting somewhere? Residence? For how long? How difficult is it to change it?

    *edit - I know it's dumbly unfeasible, but by how much?
    This it the thing. If I really cared about our current system enough to save it, I'd move to Wyoming, where my vote would be worth 3.6x what my Californian vote would be worth.

    But then I'd have to live in a shithole, and I don't want to do that.
    meh

  12. #55032
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,525
    Uhh have you been to Wyoming?

    I wouldn’t really describe it as a shithole. Very sparsely populated, but it’s a beautiful place.

  13. #55033
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    11,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Uhh have you been to Wyoming?

    I wouldn’t really describe it as a shithole. Very sparsely populated, but it’s a beautiful place.
    It would be better without humans for that. As a human dwelling, it's a shithole.
    meh

  14. #55034
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    7,663
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Uhh have you been to Wyoming?

    I wouldn’t really describe it as a shithole. Very sparsely populated, but it’s a beautiful place.
    It would be better without humans for that. As a human dwelling, it's a shithole.
    Are you saying people who live in Wyoming shouldn't have their vote count 4x more than urban people? Why do you hate rural folk so much???

  15. #55035
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,477
    Quote Originally Posted by Yankunytjatjara View Post
    What's the legal requirement to be able to vote in a state rather than the other? Residence i assume - but for how long?
    In Minnesota: Continuous residency for at least 20 days prior to an election. Other states require 30 or 60 days.

    As for how you define "residency", that varies. This is MN's criteria.
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  16. #55036
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Uhh have you been to Wyoming?

    I wouldn’t really describe it as a shithole. Very sparsely populated, but it’s a beautiful place.
    It would be better without humans for that. As a human dwelling, it's a shithole.
    Are you saying people who live in Wyoming shouldn't have their vote count 4x more than urban people? Why do you hate rural folk so much???
    Better solution, break up the massive Democrat-dominated urban states (California, New York, Illinois, etc) into multiple States.

    Perfect solution, now we have 200+ States, all with generally similar populations, and eveyone's vote will count the same in Presidential elections.

    Better yet, the rural parts of currently urban-dominated States can now rule themselves as they see fit, it's a win/win really.

    So the 85% of rural Virginia can be one State, NOVA one State, Hampton Roads one State, etc.



  17. #55037
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    11,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Uhh have you been to Wyoming?

    I wouldn’t really describe it as a shithole. Very sparsely populated, but it’s a beautiful place.
    It would be better without humans for that. As a human dwelling, it's a shithole.
    Are you saying people who live in Wyoming shouldn't have their vote count 4x more than urban people? Why do you hate rural folk so much???
    Better solution, break up the massive Democrat-dominated urban states (California, New York, Illinois, etc) into multiple States.

    Perfect solution, now we have 200+ States, all with generally similar populations, and eveyone's vote will count the same in Presidential elections.

    Better yet, the rural parts of currently urban-dominated States can now rule themselves as they see fit, it's a win/win really.

    So the 85% of rural Virginia can be one State, NOVA one State, Hampton Roads one State, etc.

    Why have states at that point? Just go direct democracy at 1 adult, non-felon human, one vote. It would be just as easy to administer.
    meh

  18. #55038

    Join Date
    May 10, 2011
    Location
    Unsubbed
    Posts
    2,576
    That would require rewriting the Constitution...

    How about we focus on letting a computer draw district lines based on population instead of human beings. Instead of thinking we're going to convince 3/5ths of states to give up their Senators...

  19. #55039
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,525
    Quote Originally Posted by jonesbones View Post
    That would require rewriting the Constitution...

    How about we focus on letting a computer draw district lines based on population instead of human beings. Instead of thinking we're going to convince 3/5ths of states to give up their Senators...
    Permanent Apportionment Act also needs to go. That, combined with algodistricting, would solve most of the problem at the federal level. You’d still have a problem with the senate being majorly imbalanced, but the house and the electoral college should both be much more responsive to popular vote totals if you had 1000 representatives instead of 435.

  20. #55040
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    17,074
    I always thought it was weird how few representative there were in such large country.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •