American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Meretica]

If bipartisanship is dead, then so is the idea that is America.

Except the idea of America is not dead.

Martin Luther King's dream lives on though he is dead. LBJ's hopes for a Great Society can still come about. Senator La Follette's hopes for a more democratic, less radicalized society can still come about. There is hope for a better future, and there is hope for bipartisanship. Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, and hundreds of Senators and Politicians before them-- the Kennedy's, the Rockefellers, the Clays, the Trumans, the Eisenhowers. It can be done. We just have to figuratively fight for it. There is hope left.

Before them, yes, but not now. We have one thing that they didn't have hindering the idea of bipartisanship: Ideological mass media and social media creating separate realities for left and right in this country. In this way only could hostile beliefs like QAnon become a thing to be taken so seriously by so many people. When you've been told for decades not to trust traditional news, not to trust education, not to trust any voices that don't agree with what a small handful of people say is the truth, and when the only way to keep them with you is to ramp up the fear factor periodically until you have millions believing in satanic paedophilic cults ruling America that can only be stopped by mass arrests and executions, then working together becomes all but impossible.

The idea of America is not dead, but it is gravely ill and on life support. It needs massive surgery to be able to live again, and the two parties have neither the desire nor the foresight to accept what has to be done.

The entire GOP does not believe in QAnon, though I will admit many do-- or at least pretend to.

Trump is old. I think it's safe to say that he's on his last legs. I don't wish death on him, but I think he'll be dead soon-- he's not looking too great. I think that with Trump's death, many (though not all) will come to understand that they've been duped. And I think those people will be angrier than a rooster fighting a fox in the hen house. America may be on life support, but we have surgeons on the way. We just need to make sure no one signs the DNR.

[San Lumen]

I am a supporter of the filibuster, though it needs changes. For some Senators, it was the fact that the filibuster was included in the bill that they didn't support the For the People Act.

The filibuster isn't included at all in the For the People Act. The filibuster is an internal rule of the Senate that isn't part of any law, Constitution, ... and therefore is totally out of the scope of a law of Congress (like "For the People Act").

And I strongly oppose the filibuster as it currently is, it gives way too much power to a minority, especially with the composition of the Senate. The 50 GOP Senators represent like 35% of the population, and the 40 needed to filibuster any law represent less than 30% of the population. That's utterly insane to give such a small minority the power to block about everything as they wish.

I think we should go back to the talking filibuster. That should be the only kind allowed.

[Meretica]

I am a supporter of the filibuster, though it needs changes. For some Senators, it was the fact that the filibuster was included in the bill that they didn't support the For the People Act.

The filibuster isn't included at all in the For the People Act. The filibuster is an internal rule of the Senate that isn't part of any law, Constitution, ... and therefore is totally out of the scope of a law of Congress (like "For the People Act").

And I strongly oppose the filibuster as it currently is, it gives way too much power to a minority, especially with the composition of the Senate. The 50 GOP Senators represent like 35% of the population, and the 40 needed to filibuster any law represent less than 30% of the population. That's utterly insane to give such a small minority the power to block about everything as they wish.

I am opposed to the filibuster in its current implementation-- I prefer a 55 vote threshold myself. I also prefer a unicameral system two the bicameral system currently in use.

Democrats represent ~51% of the population; Republicans represent ~47%. (Not literally when looking at population, I am referring to how many people voted for X party.) The system isn't perfect. I have never claimed that and unless real change is implemented, I never will. But the system is what we have to work with.

[Meretica]

This is the extremism to be found on both the left and the right.

People on both sides make it an either/or issue.

THE WORLD IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE!

I'm not suggesting that it is. I am pointing out to you that there already is bloodshed and death, and you cannot opt-out of the way the world already is. If you want a world without bloodshed and death then you must change the world.

You can change the world through non-violence.

[Vassenor]

Bring back the talking filibuster at the very least. See how many of them have the courage in their convictions if they have to actually talk a bill down.

Basic rules: no tag teaming, must stay on topic and talk without hesitation or repetition.

[Shrillland]

Before them, yes, but not now. We have one thing that they didn't have hindering the idea of bipartisanship: Ideological mass media and social media creating separate realities for left and right in this country. In this way only could hostile beliefs like QAnon become a thing to be taken so seriously by so many people. When you've been told for decades not to trust traditional news, not to trust education, not to trust any voices that don't agree with what a small handful of people say is the truth, and when the only way to keep them with you is to ramp up the fear factor periodically until you have millions believing in satanic paedophilic cults ruling America that can only be stopped by mass arrests and executions, then working together becomes all but impossible.

The idea of America is not dead, but it is gravely ill and on life support. It needs massive surgery to be able to live again, and the two parties have neither the desire nor the foresight to accept what has to be done.

The entire GOP does not believe in QAnon, though I will admit many do-- or at least pretend to.

Trump is old. I think it's safe to say that he's on his last legs. I don't wish death on him, but I think he'll be dead soon-- he's not looking too great. I think that with Trump's death, many (though not all) will come to understand that they've been duped. And I think those people will be angrier than a rooster fighting a fox in the hen house. America may be on life support, but we have surgeons on the way. We just need to make sure no one signs the DNR.

Trump is only a rash, not the disease itself. The kind of vitriol that fueled his rise and led to this increase in radicalisation will still live on, and since so many people, both left and right, proudly cling onto their echo chambers, it'll be hard to reverse. As for the surgeons coming, they won't do what is necessary because the first and most important thing to do is nothing less than the destruction of two-party politics. The best way to stop mass radicalisation is to isolate the groups that are doing it and turn this country into a five- or six-party state. Thus, moderates and hardliners would have their own spaces, and more compromise would have to occur to ensure steady leadership. RCV is a good start, but it doesn't go far enough, only giving individual third-party candidates opportunities.

[Meretica]

Bring back the talking filibuster at the very least. See how many of them have the courage in their convictions if they have to actually talk a bill down.

That would be a good things, tbh.

[Picairn]

Love how several people here are clamoring for war. Y'all would be dead within weeks if an actual civil war broke out. No joke, the Yugoslav wars were deadly and rife with genocide, now apply that to a country equivalent to continental Europe. Bodies would spread from the Grand Canyon to the Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps cool our heads for a bit and go back to discussing rational solutions? Biden needs to pass that infrastructure bill asap.

[Ifreann]

I'm not suggesting that it is. I am pointing out to you that there already is bloodshed and death, and you cannot opt-out of the way the world already is. If you want a world without bloodshed and death then you must change the world.

You can change the world through non-violence.

Yes, you can. But sometimes when you try to change the world, people try to violently stop you.

[Shrillland]

Love how several people here are clamoring for war. Y'all would be dead within weeks if an actual civil war broke out. No joke, the Yugoslav wars were deadly and rife with genocide, now apply that to a country equivalent to continental Europe. Bodies would spread from the Grand Canyon to the Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps cool our heads for a bit and go back to discussing rational solutions? Biden needs to pass that infrastructure bill asap.

I'm certainly not clamouring for it, I don't want it at all. I just look at where we are and sadly think its where we're ultimately headed.

As for returning to Earth, gladly. The $1.2 trillion is still pretty modest for what we need.

[Meretica]

The entire GOP does not believe in QAnon, though I will admit many do-- or at least pretend to.

Trump is old. I think it's safe to say that he's on his last legs. I don't wish death on him, but I think he'll be dead soon-- he's not looking too great. I think that with Trump's death, many (though not all) will come to understand that they've been duped. And I think those people will be angrier than a rooster fighting a fox in the hen house. America may be on life support, but we have surgeons on the way. We just need to make sure no one signs the DNR.

Trump is only a rash, not the disease itself. The kind of vitriol that fueled his rise and led to this increase in radicalization will still live on, and since so many people, both left and right, proudly cling onto their echo chambers, it'll be hard to reverse. As for the surgeons coming, they won't do what is necessary because the first and most important thing to do is nothing less than the destruction of two-party politics. The best way to stop mass radicalization is to isolate the groups that are doing it and turn this country into a five- or six-party state. Thus, moderates and hardliners would have their own spaces, and more compromise would have to occur to ensure steady leadership. RCV is a good start, but it doesn't go far enough, only giving individual third-party candidates opportunities.

Some surgeons want that. Not all do because otherwise, they wouldn't be electable. A unicameral, multiparty system is best for America in its current state. I believe that there has to be a legal, diplomatic way to get this done. Most Americans want a 3rd, even a 4th, party to vote for. They don't vote for them because they don't want "them" to win. America is very us vs them. There is no "we" anymore, and that needs to be handled. I almost wish that Trump would start a 3rd party and left Romney, Collins, and others to run the traditional GOP.

[San Lumen]

Love how several people here are clamoring for war. Y'all would be dead within weeks if an actual civil war broke out. No joke, the Yugoslav wars were deadly and rife with genocide, now apply that to a country equivalent to continental Europe. Bodies would spread from the Grand Canyon to the Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps cool our heads for a bit and go back to discussing rational solutions? Biden needs to pass that infrastructure bill asap.

It seems like we will get one. A deal appears to have been reached and has 60 votes.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/24/politics ... index.html

[Meretica]

You can change the world through non-violence.

Yes, you can. But sometimes when you try to change the world, people try to violently stop you.

And that is the way of the world, I will give you that. But where there is one person that believes something, there is more. Where one person speaks up for something, others will join that one person. I truly believe that.

[Shrillland]

Trump is only a rash, not the disease itself. The kind of vitriol that fueled his rise and led to this increase in radicalization will still live on, and since so many people, both left and right, proudly cling onto their echo chambers, it'll be hard to reverse. As for the surgeons coming, they won't do what is necessary because the first and most important thing to do is nothing less than the destruction of two-party politics. The best way to stop mass radicalization is to isolate the groups that are doing it and turn this country into a five- or six-party state. Thus, moderates and hardliners would have their own spaces, and more compromise would have to occur to ensure steady leadership. RCV is a good start, but it doesn't go far enough, only giving individual third-party candidates opportunities.

Some surgeons want that. Not all do because otherwise, they wouldn't be electable. A unicameral, multiparty system is best for America in its current state. I believe that there has to be a legal, diplomatic way to get this done. Most Americans want a 3rd, even a 4th, party to vote for. They don't vote for them because they don't want "them" to win. America is very us vs them. There is no "we" anymore, and that needs to be handled. I almost wish that Trump would start a 3rd party and left Romney, Collins, and others to run the traditional GOP.

Bicameral still makes sense here, being a federal state, there needs to be a chamber where those states all stand as equals. Yes, it's irritating as all hell, but most other federal states still have upper houses that do their job well. Having said that, you probably won't get the people to support the changes necessary to make even the Senate fairer while still keeping the states equal.

[Meretica]

Some surgeons want that. Not all do because otherwise, they wouldn't be electable. A unicameral, multiparty system is best for America in its current state. I believe that there has to be a legal, diplomatic way to get this done. Most Americans want a 3rd, even a 4th, party to vote for. They don't vote for them because they don't want "them" to win. America is very us vs them. There is no "we" anymore, and that needs to be handled. I almost wish that Trump would start a 3rd party and left Romney, Collins, and others to run the traditional GOP.

Bicameral still makes sense here, being a federal state, there needs to be a chamber where those states all stand as equals. Yes, it's irritating as all hell, but most other federal states still have upper houses that do their job well. Having said that, you probably won't get the people to support the changes necessary to make even the Senate fairer while still keeping the states equal.

I think that, given enough time and effort, a person could. If forced to keep a bicameral system, I would say that increasing the number of Senators and merging some of the states (which would be good for the nation in general, given that we would then be able to change how the budget works for the better) and creating districts for Senators would be very good. By that, I mean that half the population elects one Senator, while the other half elects the other.

[San Lumen]

https://sunnysidepost.com/tiffany-caban ... es-victory

Tiffany Caban who very narrowly lost a bid to become Queens DA in 2019 has a insurmountable lead in the 22nd NYC city council district based around Astoria and has declared victory. She got 49.32 of first choice votes.

Cabán was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America.

[Kilobugya]

Bicameral still makes sense here, being a federal state, there needs to be a chamber where those states all stand as equals.

I'm not fond of federalism itself, but even federalism doesn't necessarily mean that all states have to "stand as equal". You could very well have qualified majority systems like in EU (which is also federal) : for something to pass in the European Council, you need 55% of the members states representing 65% of the population. That prevents the "big states" from imposing their will on the small ones, but also prevent a minority of the population imposing their will over the majority. Something like that in the US Senate would make more sense, even if you keep the "two senators per state".

[Shrillland]

Bicameral still makes sense here, being a federal state, there needs to be a chamber where those states all stand as equals. Yes, it's irritating as all hell, but most other federal states still have upper houses that do their job well. Having said that, you probably won't get the people to support the changes necessary to make even the Senate fairer while still keeping the states equal.

I think that, given enough time and effort, a person could. If forced to keep a bicameral system, I would say that increasing the number of Senators and merging some of the states (which would be good for the nation in general, given that we would then be able to change how the budget works for the better) and creating districts for Senators would be very good. By that, I mean that half the population elects one Senator, while the other half elects the other.

You'll definitely never get the states to look at merging with each other. The best way is actually to switch to STV while expanding the Senate to five per state, similar to what Australia does.

[Meretica]

I think that, given enough time and effort, a person could. If forced to keep a bicameral system, I would say that increasing the number of Senators and merging some of the states (which would be good for the nation in general, given that we would then be able to change how the budget works for the better) and creating districts for Senators would be very good. By that, I mean that half the population elects one Senator, while the other half elects the other.

You'll definitely never get the states to look at merging. The best way is actually to switch to STV while expanding the Senate to five per state, similar to what Australia does.

I'm personally not a fan of STV. I prefer RCV.

[Shrillland]

You'll definitely never get the states to look at merging. The best way is actually to switch to STV while expanding the Senate to five per state, similar to what Australia does.

I'm personally not a fan of STV. I prefer RCV.

It's the same thing though, just for multiple candidates. And the House needs PR in some capacity. Australia's had RCV for over 100 years, and their House is still primarily a two-and-a-half-party affair.

[Meretica]

I'm personally not a fan of STV. I prefer RCV.

It's the same thing though, just for multiple candidates.

I know-- I'm not a fan of STV because it elects multiple candidates. I prefer a system where people vote for a party and then vote for a personal representative under RCV.

[Shrillland]

It's the same thing though, just for multiple candidates.

I know-- I'm not a fan of STV because it elects multiple candidates. I prefer a system where people vote for a party and then vote for a personal representative under RCV.

Ah, MMP-RCV. Not bad.

[Meretica]

I know-- I'm not a fan of STV because it elects multiple candidates. I prefer a system where people vote for a party and then vote for a personal representative under RCV.

Ah, MMP-RCV. Not bad.

I'm a radical in my own right-- unicameralism with MMP-RCV is virtually unheard of in America.

[Shrillland]

Ah, MMP-RCV. Not bad.

I'm a radical in my own right-- unicameralism with MMP-RCV is virtually unheard of in America.

We're all radicals in a way here, not especially representative of our respective countries, which is actually good on a variety of levels tbh.

[Meretica]

I'm a radical in my own right-- unicameralism with MMP-RCV is virtually unheard of in America.

We're all radicals in a way here, not especially representative of our respective countries, which is actually good on a variety of levels tbh.

It is to a point, yeah, until you call your representative XD