American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[Khurkhogur]

Heidegger was a member of the nazi party - his philosophy is valued nonetheless. The same goes for Schmitt. His political theory is highly regarded. I quoted him in a uni paper once before knowing he was a nazi. When I found out, I asked a friend who studied political philosophy how I wasn't failed. Apparently, no professor would bat an eye at that.

That's an interesting way to defend the crown jurist of the third reich.

I'm not defending him, I'm citing him. I have ranted about the evils of fascism on here before. I recognize it's a deeply inhuman and destructive ideology and I'm not a fan. That doesn't change the fact that this quote from Schmitt is true.

[Galloism]

Except that they cannot pick their own representative since the state has made it so that the only method they have to prevent a law from passing that they do not like is basically unavailable. What the state has done is created tyranny of the majority.

How can they not pick their own representatives? Do certain areas of Oregon not have free and fair elections?

Oregon, like a lot of states, gets an “F” on partisan gerrymandering.

https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/lo ... 93b95a4071

[San Lumen]

How can they not pick their own representatives? Do certain areas of Oregon not have free and fair elections?

Oregon, like a lot of states, gets an “F” on partisan gerrymandering.

https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/lo ... 93b95a4071

I have made it quite clear I think gerrymandering should be banned nationwide.

[Neutraligon]

How can they not pick their own representatives? Do certain areas of Oregon not have free and fair elections?

Oregon, like a lot of states, gets an “F” on partisan gerrymandering.

https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/lo ... 93b95a4071

That and the decision is between who they want and having an ineffective representative. Republicans cannot filibuster, they do not have the numbers due to gerrymandering.

Oregon, like a lot of states, gets an “F” on partisan gerrymandering.

https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/lo ... 93b95a4071

I have made it quite clear I think gerrymandering should be banned nationwide.

That's great and all, but so long as gerrymandering exists, preventing the quorum is the only way the minority party has to prevent bills they do not want to be passed.

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

That's an interesting way to defend the crown jurist of the third reich.

I'm not defending him, I'm citing him. I have ranted about the evils of fascism on here before. I recognize it's a deeply inhuman and destructive ideology and I'm not a fan. That doesn't change the fact that this quote from Schmitt is true.

No you are too busy ranting about non-existent conservative socialism most of the time in this thread.

[Galloism]

Oregon, like a lot of states, gets an “F” on partisan gerrymandering.

https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/lo ... 93b95a4071

I have made it quite clear I think gerrymandering should be banned nationwide.

And that’s great. I agree with you on this.

But it doesn’t change the situation as is on the ground today.

[Khurkhogur]

I'm not defending him, I'm citing him. I have ranted about the evils of fascism on here before. I recognize it's a deeply inhuman and destructive ideology and I'm not a fan. That doesn't change the fact that this quote from Schmitt is true.

No you are too busy ranting about non-existent conservative socialism most of the time in this thread.

Non-existent?? Explain the middle and late USSR and its satellites. Explain North Korea. Explain Cuba. (In fact, I don't think there's ever been a free, progressive socialist society maybe with the exception of the first 5-10 years of the USSR). Also, I don't see how that has anything to do with Schmitt, that was a complete non-sequitur.

[Ifreann]

But nothing. These districts should get to choose their own representatives, not have their choices dictated by big city east coast liberals.

And they do get to pick their own representatives as do urban areas. What they don’t get to do is hold the government hostage so nothing can get done.

Getting to pick their own representatives doesn't include the clause "unless those representatives deny the legislature quorum". If you have such a problem with how Oregon's legislature operates then maybe you should move there and campaign on reforming the quorum rules.

[San Lumen]

Oregon, like a lot of states, gets an “F” on partisan gerrymandering.

https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/lo ... 93b95a4071

That and the decision is between who they want and having an ineffective representative. Republicans cannot filibuster, they do not have the numbers due to gerrymandering.

I have made it quite clear I think gerrymandering should be banned nationwide.

That's great and all, but so long as gerrymandering exists, preventing the quorum is the only way the minority party has to prevent bills they do not want to be passed.

Even with non gerrymandered maps it’s unlikely Republicans would get a majority in the state legislature.

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

No you are too busy ranting about non-existent conservative socialism most of the time in this thread.

Non-existent?? Explain the middle and late USSR and its satellites. Explain North Korea. Explain Cuba. (In fact, I don't think there's ever been a free, progressive socialist society maybe with the exception of the first 5-10 years of the USSR). Also, I don't see how that has anything to do with Schmitt, that was a complete non-sequitur.

Cuba legalized gay marriage the previous year and made homosexuality legal before us, so that is not a very convincing argument if you use Cuba.

[Tarsonis]

I expect there will be a legal challenge to bill 113, but I have no clue how that would go.

[Neutraligon]

That and the decision is between who they want and having an ineffective representative. Republicans cannot filibuster, they do not have the numbers due to gerrymandering.

That's great and all, but so long as gerrymandering exists, preventing the quorum is the only way the minority party has to prevent bills they do not want to be passed.

Even with non gerrymandered maps it’s unlikely Republicans would get a majority in the state legislature.

Correct, they would likely however have far more people, likely enough to be able to filibuster. That is the option I am sure they would prefer.

[San Lumen]

And they do get to pick their own representatives as do urban areas. What they don’t get to do is hold the government hostage so nothing can get done.

Getting to pick their own representatives doesn't include the clause "unless those representatives deny the legislature quorum". If you have such a problem with how Oregon's legislature operates then maybe you should move there and campaign on reforming the quorum rules.

The people did have a problem with it hence why they passed the referendum regarding unexcused absences to the legislature.

[Neutraligon]

Getting to pick their own representatives doesn't include the clause "unless those representatives deny the legislature quorum". If you have such a problem with how Oregon's legislature operates then maybe you should move there and campaign on reforming the quorum rules.

The people did have a problem with it hence why they passed the referendum regarding unexcused absences to the legislature.

The people of Oregon in general had an issue. Those in the districts where the senators are walking out likely did not agree.

[San Lumen]

The people did have a problem with it hence why they passed the referendum regarding unexcused absences to the legislature.

The people of Oregon in general had an issue. Those in the districts where the senators are walking out likely did not agree.

Ok and? Does the minorities opinion matter more when it comes to a referendum or in the legislature?

[Khurkhogur]

Non-existent?? Explain the middle and late USSR and its satellites. Explain North Korea. Explain Cuba. (In fact, I don't think there's ever been a free, progressive socialist society maybe with the exception of the first 5-10 years of the USSR). Also, I don't see how that has anything to do with Schmitt, that was a complete non-sequitur.

Cuba legalized gay marriage the previous year and made homosexuality legal before us, so that is not a very convincing argument if you use Cuba.

This is where things get interesting. In the most conservative parts of medieval and early modern europe, homosexuality was usually overlooked and rarely punished. In orthodox europe (which I would definitely characterize as more conservative), the church really didn't care about that stuff, and nor did the state. It certainly wasn't encouraged, but where it did happen at most those committing it would be expected to publicly repent. This was also the case in Catholic europe for quite a while.
Progressivism entails politics entering and eventually dominating people's personal lives. The places where capitalism and financial elites emerged first are also the places where homosexuality became much more taboo, theories of eugenics became popular, and various moral codes began to dominate public life. The most conservative places today are the places where the people are least involved in politics, and politics are least involved with people. Cuba fits that description much better than the US. (And just to be clear, gay marriage is really just the other side of the coin to banning homosexuality, just like modern, liberal notions of progress are the flipside of social darwinian progress)

[Bienenhalde]

Course I care about democracy. But if one side wants to make the game unbalanced, well, someone’s gotta balance it out. I was serious about the proportional congress thing, not about the executive order (duh). If the Republicans gerrymander, then the Democrats must gerrymander as well.

Wouldn't replacing single member congressional districts with statewide proportional representation effectively put an end to gerrymandering? You can't really gerrymander if you cannot vote to change the boundaries of legislative districts in your own party's favor.

[Ifreann]

Getting to pick their own representatives doesn't include the clause "unless those representatives deny the legislature quorum". If you have such a problem with how Oregon's legislature operates then maybe you should move there and campaign on reforming the quorum rules.

The people did have a problem with it hence why they passed the referendum regarding unexcused absences to the legislature.

So people from outside the district get to decide who can represent the district.

[Neutraligon]

The people of Oregon in general had an issue. Those in the districts where the senators are walking out likely did not agree.

Ok and? Does the minorities opinion matter more when it comes to a referendum or in the legislature?

NO, in this case the courts opinion is likely what matters most. It is hardly a surprise when tyranny of the majority occurs.

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

Cuba legalized gay marriage the previous year and made homosexuality legal before us, so that is not a very convincing argument if you use Cuba.

This is where things get interesting. In the most conservative parts of medieval and early modern europe, homosexuality was usually overlooked and rarely punished. In orthodox europe (which I would definitely characterize as more conservative), the church really didn't care about that stuff, and nor did the state. It certainly wasn't encouraged, but where it did happen at most those committing it would be expected to publicly repent. This was also the case in Catholic europe for quite a while.
Progressivism entails politics entering and eventually dominating people's personal lives. The places where capitalism and financial elites emerged first are also the places where homosexuality became much more taboo, theories of eugenics became popular, and various moral codes began to dominate public life. The most conservative places today are the places where the people are least involved in politics, and politics are least involved with people. Cuba fits that description much better than the US. (And just to be clear, gay marriage is really just the other side of the coin to banning homosexuality)

How is legalizing gay marriage conservative again?

[Tarsonis]

Getting to pick their own representatives doesn't include the clause "unless those representatives deny the legislature quorum". If you have such a problem with how Oregon's legislature operates then maybe you should move there and campaign on reforming the quorum rules.

The people did have a problem with it hence why they passed the referendum regarding unexcused absences to the legislature.

Worth noting that the measure was carried the heaviest in Deschutes, Lane, Lincoln, Hood River, Benton, Washington, and Multnomah counties.
. I'll give you two guess on which party is heavily favored in those counties, but you'll probably only need one.

That said, despite Republicans controlling 26 of the 36 counties, the measure only failed to pass in 2. So San does have a point here, albeit a thin one

[Khurkhogur]

This is where things get interesting. In the most conservative parts of medieval and early modern europe, homosexuality was usually overlooked and rarely punished. In orthodox europe (which I would definitely characterize as more conservative), the church really didn't care about that stuff, and nor did the state. It certainly wasn't encouraged, but where it did happen at most those committing it would be expected to publicly repent. This was also the case in Catholic europe for quite a while.
Progressivism entails politics entering and eventually dominating people's personal lives. The places where capitalism and financial elites emerged first are also the places where homosexuality became much more taboo, theories of eugenics became popular, and various moral codes began to dominate public life. The most conservative places today are the places where the people are least involved in politics, and politics are least involved with people. Cuba fits that description much better than the US. (And just to be clear, gay marriage is really just the other side of the coin to banning homosexuality)

How is legalizing gay marriage conservative again?

It's not, I agree with you on that. But still, I maintain that Cuba is a more conservative society than the US for reasons I just laid out. Basically, politics does not dominate public life in Cuba, at least not to the same extent as it does in the US.

[Haganham]

Course I care about democracy. But if one side wants to make the game unbalanced, well, someone’s gotta balance it out. I was serious about the proportional congress thing, not about the executive order (duh). If the Republicans gerrymander, then the Democrats must gerrymander as well.

Wouldn't replacing single member congressional districts with statewide proportional representation effectively put an end to gerrymandering? You can't really gerrymander if you cannot vote to change the boundaries of legislative districts in your own party's favor.

Of course if you're going to do that why even have it be statewide? The whole advantage to having districts is more local representation and proportional representation.
But if you're getting rid of districts you might as well so something like a nationwide party list. It would definitely do more to promote party diversity.

How is legalizing gay marriage conservative again?

"marriage is between the couple and god, and the government should git out"

[Khurkhogur]

How is legalizing gay marriage conservative again?

It's not, I agree with you on that. But still, I maintain that Cuba is a more conservative society than the US for reasons I just laid out. Basically, politics does not dominate public life in Cuba, at least not to the same extent as it does in the US.

The other thing we should remember is that socialist countries often impose progress. For example, the USSR imposed feminist values and women's rights on society, but it never really emerged organically on its own. Today, domestic violence against women is legal in Russia. Same thing goes for race - the USSR was supposedly egalitarian, but the society under it remained bigoted and intolerant. Cuba (or the GDR) legalizing gay marriage could be cases of such imposed values, where the socialist government decides something should be legal (whether that's meant to make them look good internationally or something) but the society actually doesn't take those values to heart.
Throughout the 80s, the gay music scene was mainstream throughout the west. Major male pop stars wore women's clothes on TV and vice versa. Where were those elements in 1980s east Berlin? The point being that there was no popular culture that endorsed those values in the eastern bloc, and the same probably goes for Cuba today.

[San Lumen]

The people did have a problem with it hence why they passed the referendum regarding unexcused absences to the legislature.

So people from outside the district get to decide who can represent the district.

When you obstruct government yes.

If someone Baker City does not like what someone in Eugene or Portland does too freaking bad. You don't get to hold up the very functioning of government.