American Politics Impeachment: 2 fast? No, we're 2 furious

[The Marlborough]

I feel this sort of criticism comes more from liberals and centrists in the Democratic Party who are pro-Israel. And that is what this really is about it.

Not necessarily, she's one of those who thinks it's manifestly impossible for democracy to develop in the Islamic world because everybody will just vote for religious extremists like Daesh, even though Tunisia shoots that argument down quickly.

Tunisia is unique in a lot of ways but one of the most important things about it is that tribal identity was softened and cleaved over the course of Tunisian history prior to its revolution which has given it an edge over other MENA countries; it was already one of the more Western MENA countries arguably the most Western even more so than Israel. Others do have legitimate issues with latent extremism or their tribal politics/identities are too strong and prominent to make it work effectively. Or at least have it work like a Western liberal democracy.

[Thermodolia]

And what is actually good about her positions? Or is this just a vapid "she said foreign wars bad so can do no wrong" spiel?

Legalize marijuana, end private prisons, support some form of a Green New Deal, advocating for greater accessibility for those with disabilities, free tuition for community colleges, UBI for stay at home parents, universal healthcare, yes less foreign adventurism. I don't agree with her on certain issues (nuclear power, GMO's, and some others) but on the whole she has some pretty good ideas and at the very least is someone I could say genuinely gives a shit.

Is she against nuclear power?

[Cannot think of a name]

How did farn pick a fast and the furious theme, and not Impeachment 2: Election Boogaloo

Bugaloo jumped the shark

[San Lumen]

Alas, such a solution requires constitutional change, and that's practically impossible in this climate.

Would it? Could they not do something similar with funding to what they did with the drinking age and Highways funding?

Congress could outlaw gerrymandering if they wanted too and require a independent commission. Such a measure is not likely given that elections are run by states not the federal government. This is not to say they have never done so. The Voting Rights Act and Help America Vote act are two examples.

Going the funding route like what was did with drinking age or highways funding might not be legal in this case. I can't say for certain though.

[The Marlborough]

Legalize marijuana, end private prisons, support some form of a Green New Deal, advocating for greater accessibility for those with disabilities, free tuition for community colleges, UBI for stay at home parents, universal healthcare, yes less foreign adventurism. I don't agree with her on certain issues (nuclear power, GMO's, and some others) but on the whole she has some pretty good ideas and at the very least is someone I could say genuinely gives a shit.

Is she against nuclear power?

Unfortunately yes, but hopefully she will change her mind. IIRC she's starting this new site or something where she'll be talking and debating with regular people and so that might be a way to help shift her views on it.

[Shrillland]

Alas, such a solution requires constitutional change, and that's practically impossible in this climate.

Would it? Could they not do something similar with funding to what they did with the drinking age and Highways funding?

You mean blackmail the states into compliance? They could, but I guarantee someone would put up a suit that our semi-permanently conservative SCOTUS would agree with.

[Proctopeo]

Not necessarily, she's one of those who thinks it's manifestly impossible for democracy to develop in the Islamic world because everybody will just vote for religious extremists like Daesh, even though Tunisia shoots that argument down quickly.

Tunisia is unique in a lot of ways but one of the most important things about it is that tribal identity was softened and cleaved over the course of Tunisian history prior to its revolution which has given it an edge over other MENA countries; it was already one of the more Western MENA countries arguably the most Western even more so than Israel. Others do have legitimate issues with latent extremism or their tribal politics/identities are too strong and prominent to make it work effectively. Or at least have it work like a Western liberal democracy.

It also helps that, iirc, the Maghreb is a bit less hardcore fundamentalist than the Middle East.

[San Lumen]

Would it? Could they not do something similar with funding to what they did with the drinking age and Highways funding?

You mean blackmail the states into compliance? They could, but I guarantee someone would put up a suit that our semi-permanently conservative SCOTUS would agree with.

I don't think even a liberal court would uphold that.

[Andsed]

And what is actually good about her positions? Or is this just a vapid "she said foreign wars bad so can do no wrong" spiel?

Legalize marijuana, end private prisons, support some form of a Green New Deal, advocating for greater accessibility for those with disabilities, free tuition for community colleges, UBI for stay at home parents, universal healthcare, yes less foreign adventurism. I don't agree with her on certain issues (nuclear power, GMO's, and some others) but on the whole she has some pretty good ideas and at the very least is someone I could say genuinely gives a shit.

Hmm that’s all pretty good. It’s just a shame she seems to be opposed to gay marriage otherwise she would have my full support.

[No State Here]

Which is why you base the system on that regional sweet spot that’s too long to drive but too short to fly. The US can have a regional high speed rail system and connect the regions through planes or trains

Commuter zones? Someone else mentioned that earlier during the whole trains conversation, it could have some unintended consequences but overall you would have to do it on a case by case basis and weigh economic expense to potential gains and efficiency advantages. I gave an example earlier

The issue is what exactly defines which commuter zones are where. Atlanta is the best example, it’s pretty much a hub for everyone living South of DC and East of Texas, I often hear people in my area saying they’re "driving up to Atlanta" for whatever reason even though it’s almost 9 hours. I imagine people in Mississippi and all the way up to Virginia may do the same. With this system, Atlanta would pretty much become a mega train hub (although the airport is already basically that for air travel)

There might be some overlap but commuter zones are generally well defined, for example, many people from Newark, Connecticut, and Philadelphia come to NYC for work or leisure, many people from NYC go up to Boston on weekends sometimes, many people from Philly go to Washington somewhat often, and hence we have the Northeast Megalopolis commuter zone. Makes sense to put trains here

[Shrillland]

Would it? Could they not do something similar with funding to what they did with the drinking age and Highways funding?

Congress could outlaw gerrymandering if they wanted too and require a independent commission. Such a measure is not likely given that elections are run by states not the federal government. This is not to say they have never done so. The Voting Rights Act and Help America Vote act are two examples.

Going the funding route like what was did with drinking age or highways funding might not be legal in this case. I can't say for certain though.

Ironically, it's the Voting Rights Act that makes Gerrymandering required in some states, since the "affected" states are required to guarantee representation for Black voters, as we see in...well, Louisiana.

[The Marlborough]

Legalize marijuana, end private prisons, support some form of a Green New Deal, advocating for greater accessibility for those with disabilities, free tuition for community colleges, UBI for stay at home parents, universal healthcare, yes less foreign adventurism. I don't agree with her on certain issues (nuclear power, GMO's, and some others) but on the whole she has some pretty good ideas and at the very least is someone I could say genuinely gives a shit.

Hmm that’s all pretty good. It’s just a shame she seems to be opposed to gay marriage otherwise she would have my full support.

She's not opposed to gay marriage. She was one of the initial cosponsors to repeal DOMA.

[Page]

Legalize marijuana, end private prisons, support some form of a Green New Deal, advocating for greater accessibility for those with disabilities, free tuition for community colleges, UBI for stay at home parents, universal healthcare, yes less foreign adventurism. I don't agree with her on certain issues (nuclear power, GMO's, and some others) but on the whole she has some pretty good ideas and at the very least is someone I could say genuinely gives a shit.

Why do so many leftists hate her then?

I was quite fond of her for the most part although her recent transphobia is inexcusable. A lot of liberals thought her past homophobia should damn her forever but I was willing to forgive that considering she was raised by a religious fanatic, people aren't born woke and some folks these days are so fanatical that they would probably cancel someone if there was a tape of them saying "faggot" when they were 14 years old. But forgiveness is contigent on a person not being a bigot anymore and now she knows better so there's no excuse.

I still appreciate the fact that she had the courage to tell the truth about the CIA and Pentagon arming vicious, fanatical terrorists in Syria but that isn't nearly enough for me to overlook her reactionary attitude.

[Andsed]

Hmm that’s all pretty good. It’s just a shame she seems to be opposed to gay marriage otherwise she would have my full support.

She's not opposed to gay marriage. She was one of the initial cosponsors to repeal DOMA.

Huh. Wikipedia mentioned she was part of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values which opposed stuff like that? Guess I misunderstood it

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Why do so many leftists hate her then?

I was quite fond of her for the most part although her recent transphobia is inexcusable. A lot of liberals thought her past homophobia should damn her forever but I was willing to forgive that considering she was raised by a religious fanatic, people aren't born woke and some folks these days are so fanatical that they would probably cancel someone if there was a tape of them saying "faggot" when they were 14 years old. But forgiveness is contigent on a person not being a bigot anymore and now she knows better so there's no excuse.

I still appreciate the fact that she had the courage to tell the truth about the CIA and Pentagon arming vicious, fanatical terrorists in Syria but that isn't nearly enough for me to overlook her reactionary attitude.

Your definition of "reactionary" sounds like anyone you don’t like

[Arisyan]

Here's a link to a map.

Ok your argument is entirely correct and everything but take a closer look at that district. It literally looks like a 3 year old doing an art project. Like I don't even understand how they even thought of drawing those borders. And is that like an entire street connecting the northern section of it? and Annapolis isn't even connected to the district!

[San Lumen]

Ok your argument is entirely correct and everything but take a closer look at that district. It literally looks like a 3 year old doing an art project. Like I don't even understand how they even thought of drawing those borders.

Maryland is by far some of the worst gerrymandering in the nation. I agree the lines of that district make no sense.

[The Marlborough]

She's not opposed to gay marriage. She was one of the initial cosponsors to repeal DOMA.

Huh. Wikipedia mentioned she was part of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values which opposed stuff like that? Guess I misunderstood it

Earlier in her life she was but she's since denounced her past involvement and apologized for her prior advocacy for it a few times. She was even part of the LGBT Equality Caucus when she was in Congress.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I was quite fond of her for the most part although her recent transphobia is inexcusable. A lot of liberals thought her past homophobia should damn her forever but I was willing to forgive that considering she was raised by a religious fanatic, people aren't born woke and some folks these days are so fanatical that they would probably cancel someone if there was a tape of them saying "faggot" when they were 14 years old. But forgiveness is contigent on a person not being a bigot anymore and now she knows better so there's no excuse.

I still appreciate the fact that she had the courage to tell the truth about the CIA and Pentagon arming vicious, fanatical terrorists in Syria but that isn't nearly enough for me to overlook her reactionary attitude.

Your definition of "reactionary" sounds like anyone you don’t like

Typical with communists. Democracy advocates in the USSR were considered "reactionaries" for example.

[Ifreann]

Legalize marijuana, end private prisons, support some form of a Green New Deal, advocating for greater accessibility for those with disabilities, free tuition for community colleges, UBI for stay at home parents, universal healthcare, yes less foreign adventurism. I don't agree with her on certain issues (nuclear power, GMO's, and some others) but on the whole she has some pretty good ideas and at the very least is someone I could say genuinely gives a shit.

Why do so many leftists hate her then?

Because she does support America's foreign adventurism, it's just intervening against her good friend Bashar al Assad specifically that she has a problem with. And she supports torture. And she's weirdly supported by Hindu nationalist PM of India, Narendra Modi, which is pretty sus.

---

Why do so many leftists hate her then?

Apparently Gabbard is a "transphobe" for saying transgender athletes have unfair physical advantages in women’s sports

She is also a transphobe, yes.

[Page]

I was quite fond of her for the most part although her recent transphobia is inexcusable. A lot of liberals thought her past homophobia should damn her forever but I was willing to forgive that considering she was raised by a religious fanatic, people aren't born woke and some folks these days are so fanatical that they would probably cancel someone if there was a tape of them saying "faggot" when they were 14 years old. But forgiveness is contigent on a person not being a bigot anymore and now she knows better so there's no excuse.

I still appreciate the fact that she had the courage to tell the truth about the CIA and Pentagon arming vicious, fanatical terrorists in Syria but that isn't nearly enough for me to overlook her reactionary attitude.

Your definition of "reactionary" sounds like anyone you don’t like

Transphobia is objectively reactionary, it contradicts the modern scientific understanding of gender. It is literally a reaction against progress.

[Andsed]

Huh. Wikipedia mentioned she was part of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values which opposed stuff like that? Guess I misunderstood it

Earlier in her life she was but she's since denounced her past involvement and apologized for her prior advocacy for it a few times. She was even part of the LGBT Equality Caucus when she was in Congress.

Ah yeah, I was on mobile and was doing a skim. Now that I have gotten a better read, I could definitely see myself voting for her.

[Valrifell]

You mean blackmail the states into compliance? They could, but I guarantee someone would put up a suit that our semi-permanently conservative SCOTUS would agree with.

I don't think even a liberal court would uphold that.

I mean, it would still be fundamentally up to the states to decide their elections, except now there's a pile of cash if you do it the Federally sponsored way.

[Page]

I don't think even a liberal court would uphold that.

I mean, it would still be fundamentally up to the states to decide their elections, except now there's a pile of cash if you do it the Federally sponsored way.

Wouldn't be the first case of the federal government extorting states, that's how they raised the drinking age.

[Valrifell]

Congress could outlaw gerrymandering if they wanted too and require a independent commission. Such a measure is not likely given that elections are run by states not the federal government. This is not to say they have never done so. The Voting Rights Act and Help America Vote act are two examples.

Going the funding route like what was did with drinking age or highways funding might not be legal in this case. I can't say for certain though.

Ironically, it's the Voting Rights Act that makes Gerrymandering required in some states, since the "affected" states are required to guarantee representation for Black voters, as we see in...well, Louisiana.

Maybe proportioning state delegations based on the popular vote and doing away with districts altogether would be a fun solution. Are there any terrible downsides to that?