Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:02 amWhat conversation is that lmao
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
American Politics IV: 1400 Reasons Why(A Stimulus Serial)
Page 278 of 499
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:02 amPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:02 amPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:07 amKowani wrote:A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:
I imagine the sculptor is regretting that they used a Biblical reference to make fun of Trump. On the other hand, they probably got paid which is hitting above average.
The sculptor is a trump supporter, i don't know why they'd regret anything about this
" ... a Biblical reference ..." which Trump would be unaware of ... never mind then.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:17 amPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:34 amSundiata wrote:Dresderstan wrote:It's elitist to pay for champagne, caviar and have it all on one's yacht while people millions starve and struggle with homelessness.
I'm not some apathetic elite. Really? Do you really think I drink champagne on my yacht in disgust for the poor? I'm not out of touch with humanity. I am in touch with humanity. Coal mining jobs aren't coming back.
It’s complicated because, Jeffrey Epstein was clearly an elite, and nobody can say he wasn’t in touch with humanity
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:20 am1-Is it correct to do the politics of another country in America, is it in accordance with the values of conscience ? (American Government)
2-Is it correct for a private company to advertise so the politics of another country after all ?
2-Is it correct for a private company to advertise so the politics of another country after all ?
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:25 amHakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:1-Is it correct to do the politics of another country in America, is it in accordance with the values of conscience ? (American Government)
2-Is it correct for a private company to advertise so the politics of another country after all ?
1. Don't care.
2. Freedom of Speech.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:30 amHakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:1-Is it correct to do the politics of another country in America, is it in accordance with the values of conscience ? (American Government)
2-Is it correct for a private company to advertise so the politics of another country after all ?
1. Not sure what the question is?
2. Sure. If Erdogan doesn't like it, he can politely ask the US government to suppress speech by US entities, and if he's lucky they might be polite in saying No.
He'd also be within his rights to investigate the ownership of the company, then ban that company and its parent from doing business in Turkey. Trump forcing the divestiture of TikTok would be easily enough precedent.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:39 amThere is one thing that really amazes and saddens me about USA politics: how the Republicans will always try to wrestle and ram through anything when they are in position of power without any consideration for ethics and principles (just compare how they handled Merrick Garland nomination to the Supreme Court with the one of Amy Coney Barrett), while the Democrats when they do have power they just try to compromise and play nice and end up doing next to nothing. You can't play nice when the other side refuses to.
Democrats want a $15 minimal wage, the large majority of the population wants it, they have a majority everywhere, just ram it through, as would McConnell do with a tax cut for his wealthy buddies ! The parliamentarian says no ? Override her ! The filibuster blocks them ? Get rid of it (it's already gone for many important things anyway) ! Their majority in the Senate is too small ? Grant statehood to DC (it's about time anyway).
Democrats want a $15 minimal wage, the large majority of the population wants it, they have a majority everywhere, just ram it through, as would McConnell do with a tax cut for his wealthy buddies ! The parliamentarian says no ? Override her ! The filibuster blocks them ? Get rid of it (it's already gone for many important things anyway) ! Their majority in the Senate is too small ? Grant statehood to DC (it's about time anyway).
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:41 amDresderstan wrote:San Lumen wrote:or perhaps people decided they didn't;t like the third parties. what is your issue with RCV?
Or the parties keep pushing fear and propaganda against third parties to the people creating this ever growing partisan divide in this country. You still haven't proven to me smaller parties have won.
Nah. That’s just a convenient conspiracy theory often brought up on why third parties can’t take over. I guess it feels better to say the two elder parties are working together to make sure they can’t make it rather then admit they can’t sell it.
Part of the problem is they really don’t have a message to make people switch over. A message that will get people past “The devil you know” kind of reasoning. It doesn’t help when the third parties go on about intelligence, etc. of these people.
Anyway......
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:46 am1-I would not want governments to spend people's money on the politics of other countries.New haven america wrote:Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:1-Is it correct to do the politics of another country in America, is it in accordance with the values of conscience ? (American Government)
2-Is it correct for a private company to advertise so the politics of another country after all ?
1. Don't care.
2. Freedom of Speech.
2-I think so, but what would nationalists in America think about it ?
My opinion on this subject should be an advertisement that can be made by the private sector, not the state.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:48 amCannot think of a name wrote:
Wait, that was a real thing? I thought you guys were kidding about that, I didn't know they had a literal golden idol. That's...wow.
The funny thing? It’s a craptastic ugly piece you would expect to find in a Trump hotel.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:51 amHakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:1-Is it correct to do the politics of another country in America, is it in accordance with the values of conscience ? (American Government)
2-Is it correct for a private company to advertise so the politics of another country after all ?
As long as it's "just" propaganda at home, I don't mind. It's covered by freedom of speech, and the harm done is limited, unless it's direct libel (such as accusing a foreign leader of crimes you know are wrong/you don't have any evidence for).
What bothers me more is when US corporations or US government branches finance and support political parties in foreign countries and mess up in electoral process abroad, something which is explicitly forbidden by US laws the other way around (say, Venezuela can't contribute anything to an electoral campaign in the US, but US corporations and government agencies can massively meddle in Venezuela electoral process).
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:54 amKilobugya wrote:Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:1-Is it correct to do the politics of another country in America, is it in accordance with the values of conscience ? (American Government)
2-Is it correct for a private company to advertise so the politics of another country after all ?
As long as it's "just" propaganda at home, I don't mind. It's covered by freedom of speech, and the harm done is limited, unless it's direct libel (such as accusing a foreign leader of crimes you know are wrong/you don't have any evidence for).
What bothers me more is when US corporations or US government branches finance and support political parties in foreign countries and mess up in electoral process abroad, something which is explicitly forbidden by US laws the other way around (say, Venezuela can't contribute anything to an electoral campaign in the US, but US corporations and government agencies can massively meddle in Venezuela electoral process).
Is that meddling government ordered or allowed by the corruption of that countries politicians?
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:55 amKilobugya wrote:Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum wrote:1-Is it correct to do the politics of another country in America, is it in accordance with the values of conscience ? (American Government)
2-Is it correct for a private company to advertise so the politics of another country after all ?
As long as it's "just" propaganda at home, I don't mind. It's covered by freedom of speech, and the harm done is limited, unless it's direct libel (such as accusing a foreign leader of crimes you know are wrong/you don't have any evidence for).
What bothers me more is when US corporations or US government branches finance and support political parties in foreign countries and mess up in electoral process abroad, something which is explicitly forbidden by US laws the other way around (say, Venezuela can't contribute anything to an electoral campaign in the US, but US corporations and government agencies can massively meddle in Venezuela electoral process).
Theres various foreign actors being actively involved in US electoral politics. They are just not always visible. And it isnt just russian interference, but also countless smaller ones. Oh and we haven't even talked about AIPAC.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:57 amA nonsensical comedy provides another laugh.
From what I've seen, YesCalifornia is harming the credibility for the already silly concept of Californian independence, which is always something I am in favor of.
"Blessed Exchequer, forgive us, your people have gone astray."
From what I've seen, YesCalifornia is harming the credibility for the already silly concept of Californian independence, which is always something I am in favor of.
"Blessed Exchequer, forgive us, your people have gone astray."
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:58 amThe Black Forrest wrote:Dresderstan wrote:Or the parties keep pushing fear and propaganda against third parties to the people creating this ever growing partisan divide in this country. You still haven't proven to me smaller parties have won.
Nah. That’s just a convenient conspiracy theory often brought up on why third parties can’t take over. I guess it feels better to say the two elder parties are working together to make sure they can’t make it rather then admit they can’t sell it.
Part of the problem is they really don’t have a message to make people switch over. A message that will get people past “The devil you know” kind of reasoning. It doesn’t help when the third parties go on about intelligence, etc. of these people.
Anyway......
(Poster Dresder is on a ban, btw).
Please read my post about the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate in Australia. Both use the transferrable vote, but the Senate has enough representation of smaller parties that there is almost never an outright majority for one party.
The only significant difference is that House members are elected one at a time (one per division/district) while Senators are elected six at a time (top six for each state).
STV makes very little difference, if not even the party coming second gets representation. Small parties have to go from third, directly to first, because their supporters get no more satisfaction from second place than from third. Second place is a barrier to growth in their support: it's first place or most of the supporters will desert.
PR rewards second place (in proportion of course: "second prize" is less) and even third or fourth places. And because there is rarely a one-party majority in government, even single-member parties and independents give their supporters some satisfaction by sometimes being part of a governing coalition.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:00 amStellar Colonies wrote:A nonsensical comedy provides another laugh.Kowani wrote:indeed we were not
embrace idolatry
"Blessed Exchequer, forgive us, your people have gone astray."
Yup. Nobody takes them serious. They pop up every few years.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:04 amNakena wrote:Theres various foreign actors being actively involved in US electoral politics. They are just not always visible. And it isnt just russian interference, but also countless smaller ones. Oh and we haven't even talked about AIPAC.
Well, sure, geopolitics being what it is, you'll never prevent some amount of meddling. But when the US is all outraged about Russia (or China) meddling in their elections, while they officially admit to spending millions to meddle in elections/politics elsewhere (especially latin america, which I'm more involved into), the hypocrisy is just disgusting.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:05 amA lawyer for an accused Oath Keeper Capitol rioter says the group’s ‘quick reaction force’ of weapon suppliers was actually just one guy
the storm, apparently, needed to do more cardio
In February, federal prosecutors arrested several members of the Oath Keepers – an anti-government militia group – on charges related to participating in the riot at the Capitol on January 6.
Prosecutors alleged that the Oath Keeper members had planned part of their attack. They wore tactical gear, held training sessions in the weeks before, and looked at then-President Donald Trump’s direction for their assault on Congress, prosecutors laid out in court documents.
One part of the Oath Keepers’ plan, prosecutors said, citing text messages, was having a “QRF,” or “quick reaction force,” nearby that could supply firearms to militia members “if something goes to hell.”
But that “quick reaction force” was actually just one guy who “is in his late 60s, obese, and has cardiopulmonary issues, a bad back, a bum knee, and is [in] need of a hip replacement,” according to a new court filing.
the storm, apparently, needed to do more cardio
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:05 amA-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:The Black Forrest wrote:
Nah. That’s just a convenient conspiracy theory often brought up on why third parties can’t take over. I guess it feels better to say the two elder parties are working together to make sure they can’t make it rather then admit they can’t sell it.
Part of the problem is they really don’t have a message to make people switch over. A message that will get people past “The devil you know” kind of reasoning. It doesn’t help when the third parties go on about intelligence, etc. of these people.
Anyway......
(Poster Dresder is on a ban, btw).
Please read my post about the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate in Australia. Both use the transferrable vote, but the Senate has enough representation of smaller parties that there is almost never an outright majority for one party.
The only significant difference is that House members are elected one at a time (one per division/district) while Senators are elected six at a time (top six for each state).
STV makes very little difference, if not even the party coming second gets representation. Small parties have to go from third, directly to first, because their supporters get no more satisfaction from second place than from third. Second place is a barrier to growth in their support: it's first place or most of the supporters will desert.
PR rewards second place (in proportion of course: "second prize" is less) and even third or fourth places. And because there is rarely a one-party majority in government, even single-member parties and independents give their supporters some satisfaction by sometimes being part of a governing coalition.
I saw that after that post.
That may work with Australia. How long has that been in place?
Still falls under the devil you know line of thinking. Some of the parties are outright wackados. The thought of them in government wouldn’t motivate people for change.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:06 amThe Black Forrest wrote:Stellar Colonies wrote:A nonsensical comedy provides another laugh.
"Blessed Exchequer, forgive us, your people have gone astray."
Yup. Nobody takes them serious. They pop up every few years.
Indeed
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:34 amThe Black Forrest wrote:A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:
(Poster Dresder is on a ban, btw).
Please read my post about the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate in Australia. Both use the transferrable vote, but the Senate has enough representation of smaller parties that there is almost never an outright majority for one party.
The only significant difference is that House members are elected one at a time (one per division/district) while Senators are elected six at a time (top six for each state).
STV makes very little difference, if not even the party coming second gets representation. Small parties have to go from third, directly to first, because their supporters get no more satisfaction from second place than from third. Second place is a barrier to growth in their support: it's first place or most of the supporters will desert.
PR rewards second place (in proportion of course: "second prize" is less) and even third or fourth places. And because there is rarely a one-party majority in government, even single-member parties and independents give their supporters some satisfaction by sometimes being part of a governing coalition.
I saw that after that post.
That may work with Australia. How long has that been in place?
Since 1984 in its current form, STV Group Voting Ticket. STV for the Senate dates to 1949, but it was 4 elections before any new parties got representation, I think because voters weren't confident enough of where their vote might go, to vote for their preferred outcome. The Senate itself came into being in 1901 with Federation.
The fountain of new parties that happened in 2016 was because 12 were elected from each state, and while it takes a Double Dissolution to do that, it is an argument for increasing the total number of Senators. For, say, 10 up in each state.
Still falls under the devil you know line of thinking. Some of the parties are outright wackados. The thought of them in government wouldn’t motivate people for change.
They're fine. Clive Palmer funded 3 other Senators to election along with himself, they all defected from his "party" within weeks. Jacqui Lambie in particular was great ... until she was disqualified for having British citizenship. But more thoroughbred politicians than her fell for the old Section 44(i). Even Pauline Hanson has repented of being anti-immigrant (she's opposed to Islamic Fundamentalism now) and sometimes casts a vote I approve of.
"Letting wackadoodles into government" is much less of a threat than you'd expect. If they're only a small fraction of the ruling coalition, they get only a tiny fraction of their agenda heard.
There is another feature of the Australian system, which it could be dangerous to do without: the government can call another election just by the Prime Minister's call (there is a maximum time of course). The UK had that before bizarrely settling on fixed 5-YEAR terms, but they still do have a provision to call an early election if the House is too divided to do anything else. No such provision in the US might fit badly with the House being divided among different parties than the Senate has.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:58 amHow would PR work in the US House? Not badly overall, though it would utterly fail for the least populous states.
There are 7 states with only one Representative. Single office, not at all proportional.
AK 1
DE 1
MT 1
ND 1
SD 1
VT 1
WY 1
There are 5 states with two Representatives. They're probably going to split 1 R and 1 D, but in the long term there's a chance for a third party to take the second spot.
HI 2
ID 2
ME 2
NH 2
RI 2
There are 3 states with three Representatives. There's a real chance for an independent in NM if you accept the other two are going to be major party. It's hard to imagine in WV, because Republican sentiment will get two, and Democratic opposition (which will endure for decades) takes the other.
NE 3
NM 3
WV 3
Four Representatives is where a third-party/independent become outright likely. But not necessarily of the same party: NV might go for a Libertarian, but UT would go for a Mormon independent.
AR 4
IA 4
KS 4
MS 4
NV 4
UT 4
At five Representatives, the polling order is no longer certain enough for voters to assign preferences "strategically" and they'll no longer take chances on candidates they know little about. Independents have a chance in OR, but in the other two states they will struggle for 1 votes when there are names on the ballot (group candidates who have little chance) which they don't recognize. Your counting system should allow for that, but for several elections your voters won't have faith in it.
CT 5
OK 5
OR 5
Six works in Australia, but practically no-one can predict who gets the last seat. However disturbing it is to watch the count, unpredictability means voting in good faith rather than trying to game the system.
KY 6
LA 6
Seven is better than six. At least one minor party or independent is assured.
AL 7
CO 7
SC 7
And eight is better than seven! People may even favor third-parties since 4D/4R would make their state "neutral" in the old system, as if they might as well not bother. (Less so for 6, but a bit)
MD 8
MN 8
MO 8
WI 8
(We're up to 130 I think)
I think 9 is ideal, and any more than this raises the question of whether you need a quota of 1 votes, to keep freaks who only a hundred people gave as first preference, elected.
AZ 9
IN 9
MA 9
TN 9
WA 10
VA 11
NJ 12
NC 13
GA 14
MI 14
OH 16
IL 18
PA 18
FL 27
NY 27
TX 36
CA 53
All the big-population states would have very proportional representation in the US House. The system would work well for about 2/3 of the population, and ... at least interestingly ... for about another 1/6th. Doubling the size of the House would make it work for about 5/6 of the population.
There are 7 states with only one Representative. Single office, not at all proportional.
AK 1
DE 1
MT 1
ND 1
SD 1
VT 1
WY 1
There are 5 states with two Representatives. They're probably going to split 1 R and 1 D, but in the long term there's a chance for a third party to take the second spot.
HI 2
ID 2
ME 2
NH 2
RI 2
There are 3 states with three Representatives. There's a real chance for an independent in NM if you accept the other two are going to be major party. It's hard to imagine in WV, because Republican sentiment will get two, and Democratic opposition (which will endure for decades) takes the other.
NE 3
NM 3
WV 3
Four Representatives is where a third-party/independent become outright likely. But not necessarily of the same party: NV might go for a Libertarian, but UT would go for a Mormon independent.
AR 4
IA 4
KS 4
MS 4
NV 4
UT 4
At five Representatives, the polling order is no longer certain enough for voters to assign preferences "strategically" and they'll no longer take chances on candidates they know little about. Independents have a chance in OR, but in the other two states they will struggle for 1 votes when there are names on the ballot (group candidates who have little chance) which they don't recognize. Your counting system should allow for that, but for several elections your voters won't have faith in it.
CT 5
OK 5
OR 5
Six works in Australia, but practically no-one can predict who gets the last seat. However disturbing it is to watch the count, unpredictability means voting in good faith rather than trying to game the system.
KY 6
LA 6
Seven is better than six. At least one minor party or independent is assured.
AL 7
CO 7
SC 7
And eight is better than seven! People may even favor third-parties since 4D/4R would make their state "neutral" in the old system, as if they might as well not bother. (Less so for 6, but a bit)
MD 8
MN 8
MO 8
WI 8
(We're up to 130 I think)
I think 9 is ideal, and any more than this raises the question of whether you need a quota of 1 votes, to keep freaks who only a hundred people gave as first preference, elected.
AZ 9
IN 9
MA 9
TN 9
WA 10
VA 11
NJ 12
NC 13
GA 14
MI 14
OH 16
IL 18
PA 18
FL 27
NY 27
TX 36
CA 53
All the big-population states would have very proportional representation in the US House. The system would work well for about 2/3 of the population, and ... at least interestingly ... for about another 1/6th. Doubling the size of the House would make it work for about 5/6 of the population.
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:24 amA-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:How would PR work in the US House? Not badly overall, though it would utterly fail for the least populous states.
Well, in my view, if you have two chambers (Senate and House), only one should be state-based, and the other nation-wide. I know it's a shocking revolution for the very federal US, but I would keep the Senate being state-based (but NOT with same number of Senators for 40 millions people California than for the 600 thousands people Wyoming) and move the House to a nation-wide proportional representation, with a low threshold (say 3%) for entry. There might be some safeguards to prevent a state-only party, like requiring the top 20 candidates of the list to be from at least 10 states, or requiring the 3% threshold in at least 10 states, but overall Congress decides the US-wide rules and laws, so it should be mainly a US-wide election, not a per-state one.