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

[San Lumen]

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/centr ... ov--hochul

Kathryn Garcia named state operations director by Gov. Hochul

Garcia was the runner up in the Democratic primary for NYC mayor back in June.

[The Black Forrest]

Talking about how much you hate authoritarians and then brag about how you plan to sadistically enjoy watching the US military enforce homelessness and poverty on 750,000 people.

Not just a few hundred thousand. I can't remember the exact number but a few million are going to be homeless soon iirc.

3.6 million are facing eviction over the next couple of months.

https://fortune.com/2021/08/02/eviction ... -congress/

[Lord Dominator]

Our population is too high for the death toll to be anything not in the hundreds of thousands short of not properly counting the deaths - even getting into the range of countries that probably aren’t counting all their dead and using their death rates would leave the US in the hundreds of thousands.

This is such a weird disconnect - there is no magic number at which it's suddenly impossible to have a sensible response to a pandemic. Your comment is basically just an argument from incredulity.

It really isn’t? You said that competent leadership would have kept the death toll from reaching the hundreds of thousands, I express that based on international death rates even of the countries that can’t count/are lying/actually have competent leadership (pick one) the US would still have had hundreds of thousands of deaths because we have so many people in the country. I don’t disagree about any point on his incompetence making it worse, just the portion of death attributable to it.

[Kilobugya]

We got a few good Presidents through the EC vote (such as Lincoln), so yeah I wouldn't trust the population alone to decide what's best for the whole country.

Lincoln also won the popular vote (not the majority, but the plurality) so it's not really a good example for the EC being better than popular vote. The two times I know about where the EC winner wasn't the popular vote winners (GW Bush and Trump) were both very bad outcomes. I know it happened a few other times in the 19th century but I don't know if it was for the better or the worst those times.

[Salus Maior]

We got a few good Presidents through the EC vote (such as Lincoln), so yeah I wouldn't trust the population alone to decide what's best for the whole country.

Lincoln also won the popular vote (not the majority, but the plurality) so it's not really a good example for the EC being better than popular vote. The two times I know about where the EC winner wasn't the popular vote winners (GW Bush and Trump) were both very bad outcomes. I know it happened a few other times in the 19th century but I don't know if it was for the better or the worst those times.

Only because the Southern vote was divided by two candidates. If that weren't the case, Lincoln wouldn't have been elected, and the slavery issue wouldn't have come to a head for who knows how long.

[North Washington Republic]

Not just a few hundred thousand. I can't remember the exact number but a few million are going to be homeless soon iirc.

3.6 million are facing eviction over the next couple of months.

https://fortune.com/2021/08/02/eviction ... -congress/

Are progressives going to do something meaningful, like introduce legislation protecting renters from being kicked out on the street during a pandemic, or they going to camp out again?

[San Lumen]

3.6 million are facing eviction over the next couple of months.

https://fortune.com/2021/08/02/eviction ... -congress/

Are progressives going to do something meaningful, like introduce legislation protecting renters from being kicked out on the street during a pandemic, or they going to camp out again?

In New York the governor is calling a special session to extend the eviction moratorium.

[The Reformed American Republic]

the USA's electoral system was designed by idiots.

Maybe... read?

No.

They knew what they were doing (and definitely were smarter than the average NSG regular), you just disagree with it. Disagreeing with a system doesn't mean its designers were idiots. That would be stupid. Clinton didn't lose because the system was bad (that's pure cope right there), she lost because she was bad at the system.

No it was designed by people who did not trust the people to make an informed decision. They wanted the electoral college do be political version of "In case of emergency break glass."

It was also create as a compromise between the free states and slave states.

More so between the small states and large states. You're thinking of the three-fifths compromise.

That's not why the American Revolution happened, and even many of the Founders supported eventual ending of the institution. It was a compromise with the Federalists who were more skeptical of democracy.

Page's claims are pure historical revisionism, and I wanna know what crackpot fed him those lies.

They were not idiots. They compromised. Some delegates wanted a direct popular vote and some wanted a ceremonial president chosen by Congress.

You have no clue what your talking about. To get a constitution everyone could agree on some sacrifices had to made.

If he's not American, his ignorance is justifiable. I don't know the ins and outs of why some shit exists in other country's governments unless I've deliberately made myself aware... which I try to do before making in-depth comments about it, which may not be normal for NSG.

The 1619 project.

[Lord Dominator]

The couple explicit times there was a disconnect between popular/electoral (with only two big candidates running) in the 1800s there was also very narrow popular margins - which make them somewhat less comparable to the last two. There was also 1824 which went somewhat beyond popular/electoral votes disconnects and thus isn’t counted as often).

The 1876 election the split had a bad result - the split ultimately ended reconstruction (or rather, the losing Democrats agreed to ignore the controversies in how disputed electors were directed in exchange for the end of such). 1884 didn’t have any particular bad result I’m aware of.

[North Washington Republic]

Are progressives going to do something meaningful, like introduce legislation protecting renters from being kicked out on the street during a pandemic, or they going to camp out again?

In New York the governor is calling a special session to extend the eviction moratorium.

Good. I hope more Governors do the same. Because asking the CDC to do something that we all know they don’t have the power to do is a stupid strategy.

[Forsher]

They were not idiots. They compromised. Some delegates wanted a direct popular vote and some wanted a ceremonial president chosen by Congress.

You have no clue what your talking about. To get a constitution everyone could agree on some sacrifices had to made.

The American Revolution was stupid to start with (EDIT: for reasons entirely unrelated to slavery, to be clear, since I've never seen anyone say it was about slavery).

It really has nothing to do with compromise. Supporting slavery is stupid. Making compromises to support slavery is stupid. These compromises literally ended up creating an entirely foreseeable civil war because they kicked a problem down the river. I'm not going to call the US Constitution clever or even clever for its time because it just isn't.

But even if I were to accept that it was the work of above average intellects doing above average quality thinking, that still doesn't change that the majority of people talking about this subject in this thread are, whether they realise it or not are either calling its creators "self serving scum with no respect for the principles they are remembered fighting for" (or similar) or they're defending slavery.

the USA's electoral system was designed by idiots.

Maybe... read?

No.

They knew what they were doing (and definitely were smarter than the average NSG regular), you just disagree with it. Disagreeing with a system doesn't mean its designers were idiots. That would be stupid. Clinton didn't lose because the system was bad (that's pure cope right there), she lost because she was bad at the system..

So... you think slavery is not stupid and people who seek to preserve slavery aren't idiots?

Somehow, I don't think you do.

Also, the is ought problem is strong in the thread at the moment.

[Forsher]

Literally anyone with executive experience for example.

I'm going to reply to this post. It's just not ready yet and I don't want to lose it.

Let's just say the theme is "why don't you give one example you think could be better qualified"?

Hmm... I appear to have deleted the bit where I claimed this process would be ridiculous. Oh well. You'll just have to believe me when I tell you that I am completely aware of how nuts this is. In any case, a numerical analysis of 82 presidential candidates' qualifications to be US President!

H Clinton is number 36, both ways.

Some notes on what I did. Basically, I started here. I meant to go through and check the infoboxes for the US Presidents themselves but I forgot... I might do that later (I have some ideas for how to make it less subjective) but probably not (because those ideas are a lot more work). However, I did do that for the runner up candidate in every presidential election.

Because the list included judgeships, I decided that military ranks were important to acknowledge, too. My starting point was here. I ignored that responsibilities of different ranks can change over time, which was something that came up particularly with naval lieutenants. I only gave people points if they were officers (I decided to call the O rank of an NCO 0.5... someone was a corporal; similarly I made a five star general an O-11).

Since we're interested in the qualifications of candidates, I decided that the numerous examples of vice presidents who completed presidential terms for deceased or resigned presidents ought to get that counted as a qualification to be president when they tried to get elected to be POTUS. Since this is controversial, I also excluded those.

Lots of candidates were the first loser multiple times but I ignored that. This is a bit problematic because they may have become more qualified during a later attempt. In general, though, I don't think that was the case... at least, in terms of how I was measuring qualifications.

I can't remember Greeley and Parker at all, but Willkie only doesn't have 0 points because he was an officer in WWI (albeit briefly). Kind of an interesting dude. Not a happy relationship with FDR at all. Incidentally, if Willkie had won it could've been interesting because both he and his running mate died during the term they campaigned for.

I also wasn't sure what WRA meant by executive experience, which is a large part of why Governors and cabinet members get equal points.

EDIT: the underlying table

[Proctopeo]

They were not idiots. They compromised. Some delegates wanted a direct popular vote and some wanted a ceremonial president chosen by Congress.

You have no clue what your talking about. To get a constitution everyone could agree on some sacrifices had to made.

The American Revolution was stupid to start with (EDIT: for reasons entirely unrelated to slavery, to be clear, since I've never seen anyone say it was about slavery).

Off to a really poor start here.

It really has nothing to do with compromise.

It has absolutely everything to do with compromise. You accuse something of being "stupid", yet you know absolutely nothing about anything related to it. I'm impressed with your blind courage, if nothing else.

Supporting slavery is stupid. Making compromises to support slavery is stupid. These compromises literally ended up creating an entirely foreseeable civil war because they kicked a problem down the river.

The options were "split into several fractured states and get picked apart by colonial powers/each other" or "punt some difficult issues further down the line". The latter makes the most sense, even if one of those issues has a generally accepted good and bad side nowadays.

I'm not going to call the US Constitution clever or even clever for its time because it just isn't.

It is, you just disagree with it. Can you point to specific parts of the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights) that you disagree with?

But even if I were to accept that it was the work of above average intellects doing above average quality thinking, that still doesn't change that the majority of people talking about this subject in this thread are, whether they realise it or not are either calling its creators "self serving scum with no respect for the principles they are remembered fighting for" (or similar) or they're defending slavery.

Nobody's defending slavery. How in the ever-loving fuck did you come to that conclusion? I'm legitimately baffled, so explain your thought process in detail.

So... you think slavery is not stupid and people who seek to preserve slavery aren't idiots?

No. Maybe... read?

Somehow, I don't think you do.

I don't. This should be an obvious sign to you that your line of thinking is wholly unfounded.

Also, the is ought problem is strong in the thread at the moment.

What?

[Exalted Inquellian State]

The American Revolution was stupid to start with (EDIT: for reasons entirely unrelated to slavery, to be clear, since I've never seen anyone say it was about slavery).

Off to a really poor start here.

It really has nothing to do with compromise.

It has absolutely everything to do with compromise. You accuse something of being "stupid", yet you know absolutely nothing about anything related to it. I'm impressed with your blind courage, if nothing else.

Supporting slavery is stupid. Making compromises to support slavery is stupid. These compromises literally ended up creating an entirely foreseeable civil war because they kicked a problem down the river.

The options were "split into several fractured states and get picked apart by colonial powers/each other" or "punt some difficult issues further down the line". The latter makes the most sense, even if one of those issues has a generally accepted good and bad side nowadays.

I'm not going to call the US Constitution clever or even clever for its time because it just isn't.

It is, you just disagree with it. Can you point to specific parts of the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights) that you disagree with?

But even if I were to accept that it was the work of above average intellects doing above average quality thinking, that still doesn't change that the majority of people talking about this subject in this thread are, whether they realise it or not are either calling its creators "self serving scum with no respect for the principles they are remembered fighting for" (or similar) or they're defending slavery.

Nobody's defending slavery. How in the ever-loving fuck did you come to that conclusion? I'm legitimately baffled, so explain your thought process in detail.

So... you think slavery is not stupid and people who seek to preserve slavery aren't idiots?

No. Maybe... read?

Somehow, I don't think you do.

I don't. This should be an obvious sign to you that your line of thinking is wholly unfounded.

Also, the is ought problem is strong in the thread at the moment.

What?

I mean, the British wouldn't be bad overlords if America broke up. Plus, at least then slaves could flee the South into free states.

[Major-Tom]

Articles like this are why I sometimes believe I'm in a sort of purgatory.

[Forsher]

I know it’s hard to think there isn’t some grand conspiracy.

There isn't a conspiracy. Your country is just moronically designed.

It should not be possible to have a winner takes all election where the person who wins more votes loses. And yet it is even possible for someone who wins most of the votes to lose.

That isn't a conspiracy. It isn't a clever design I disagree with. It's part and parcel of a design that has already caused one civil war and is well on its way to prompting the collapse of... something.

[Genivaria]

Lincoln also won the popular vote (not the majority, but the plurality) so it's not really a good example for the EC being better than popular vote. The two times I know about where the EC winner wasn't the popular vote winners (GW Bush and Trump) were both very bad outcomes. I know it happened a few other times in the 19th century but I don't know if it was for the better or the worst those times.

Only because the Southern vote was divided by two candidates. If that weren't the case, Lincoln wouldn't have been elected, and the slavery issue wouldn't have come to a head for who knows how long.

In fairness that's also because of the 3/5 rule, so slave representation in the South were used to vote against their freedom.

[Forsher]

It really has nothing to do with compromise.

It has absolutely everything to do with compromise. You accuse something of being "stupid", yet you know absolutely nothing about anything related to it. I'm impressed with your blind courage, if nothing else.

I don't think you know what "it" is. San Lumen's entire post is a non sequitur.

i.e. self-serving scum with no respect whatsoever, nor interest in, for the principles that they are generally remembered as having fought for, or idiots

That is "it". Now, observe as you defend this interpretation:

Supporting slavery is stupid. Making compromises to support slavery is stupid. These compromises literally ended up creating an entirely foreseeable civil war because they kicked a problem down the river.

The options were "split into several fractured states and get picked apart by colonial powers/each other" or "punt some difficult issues further down the line". The latter makes the most sense, even if one of those issues has a generally accepted good and bad side nowadays.

Hmm...

I'm not going to call the US Constitution clever or even clever for its time because it just isn't.

It is, you just disagree with it. Can you point to specific parts of the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights) that you disagree with?

Where should I start? Maybe... all of it?

But even if I were to accept that it was the work of above average intellects doing above average quality thinking, that still doesn't change that the majority of people talking about this subject in this thread are, whether they realise it or not are either calling its creators "self serving scum with no respect for the principles they are remembered fighting for" (or similar) or they're defending slavery.

Nobody's defending slavery. How in the ever-loving fuck did you come to that conclusion? I'm legitimately baffled, so explain your thought process in detail.

That'll be "you don't realise it".

So... you think slavery is not stupid and people who seek to preserve slavery aren't idiots?

No. Maybe... read?

Yes, you should. Watch carefully.

I claim the US constitution was designed by idiots.

You claim it is not. You further accept the contention the US Constitution was a compromise between pro and anti slave concerns.

By your own posts, the US Constitution is culpable in the institution of slavery. You object to the idea that it and its creators are called idiots. By that fact alone, you are required to accept either:

• supporting slavery isn't stupid, or
• it is possible to label the US constitution stupid because it supported slavery.

You're currently trying to do neither.

And if you try and come back with "you just think it's stupid because I disagree with it". Jesus fucking Christ. That's a nonsense. How do you think I determine whether or not something is stupid? You're parading a fact (Forsher thinks A because Forsher thinks A) as though it somehow disputes my conclusion. It doesn't. You're just describing the fact that I have a conclusion.

Somehow, I don't think you do.

I don't. This should be an obvious sign to you that your line of thinking is wholly unfounded.

No. It's a reduction of your logics to their absurd conclusion. Which I reject because I don't believe you support slavery.

Also, the is ought problem is strong in the thread at the moment.

What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

i.e. your reply here is a non sequitur; you're trying to criticise a statement entirely unconcerned with the system's implications for people within the system by talking about what people within the system have to do. That's really neither here nor there. In fact, you're not even disagreeing with me... but you think you are.

[Antipatros]

Articles like this are why I sometimes believe I'm in a sort of purgatory.

Kinda based. At least she's not doing a 180 like so many of her colleagues.

Only thing is, I'm not sure that Trump "broke his promise" on Afghanistan. He made a last ditch effort to harden the Afghan military (with a mini-surge of troops at the beginning of his administration) before pulling the plug.

I will say that he shouldn't have organized those phoney "peace" talks with the Taliban. That whole show unnecessarily legitimized the Taliban. He should have just signed a deal which said "we are leaving, please don't shoot at us on the way out or there will be consequences".

[Genivaria]

So this shit happened.

A Black school principal has been placed on paid leave one week after a group of parents accused him of pushing critical race theory — even though the Texas school does not mention it in the district’s curriculum.....

....Whitfield, who is married to a white woman, was also asked by the school district to remove photos with the couple together, with complaints saying they were inappropriate....

...In Texas, legislation has removed the requirement that students learn about the Ku Klux Klan and that the group’s white supremacy is “morally wrong.".....

https://thehill.com/changing-america/en ... n-leave-in

[San Lumen]

It has absolutely everything to do with compromise. You accuse something of being "stupid", yet you know absolutely nothing about anything related to it. I'm impressed with your blind courage, if nothing else.

I don't think you know what "it" is. San Lumen's entire post is a non sequitur.

i.e. self-serving scum with no respect whatsoever, nor interest in, for the principles that they are generally remembered as having fought for, or idiots

That is "it". Now, observe as you defend this interpretation:

The options were "split into several fractured states and get picked apart by colonial powers/each other" or "punt some difficult issues further down the line". The latter makes the most sense, even if one of those issues has a generally accepted good and bad side nowadays.

Hmm...

It is, you just disagree with it. Can you point to specific parts of the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights) that you disagree with?

Where should I start? Maybe... all of it?

Nobody's defending slavery. How in the ever-loving fuck did you come to that conclusion? I'm legitimately baffled, so explain your thought process in detail.

That'll be "you don't realise it".

No. Maybe... read?

Yes, you should. Watch carefully.

I claim the US constitution was designed by idiots.

You claim it is not. You further accept the contention the US Constitution was a compromise between pro and anti slave concerns.

By your own posts, the US Constitution is culpable in the institution of slavery. You object to the idea that it and its creators are called idiots. By that fact alone, you are required to accept either:

• supporting slavery isn't stupid, or
• it is possible to label the US constitution stupid because it supported slavery.

You're currently trying to do neither.

And if you try and come back with "you just think it's stupid because I disagree with it". Jesus fucking Christ. That's a nonsense. How do you think I determine whether or not something is stupid? You're parading a fact (Forsher thinks A because Forsher thinks A) as though it somehow disputes my conclusion. It doesn't. You're just describing the fact that I have a conclusion.

I don't. This should be an obvious sign to you that your line of thinking is wholly unfounded.

No. It's a reduction of your logics to their absurd conclusion. Which I reject because I don't believe you support slavery.

What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

i.e. your reply here is a non sequitur; you're trying to criticise a statement entirely unconcerned with the system's implications for people within the system by talking about what people within the system have to do. That's really neither here nor there. In fact, you're not even disagreeing with me... but you think you are.

No its not a non sequitur. You are looking 232 years later from a totally different perspective. Ending slavery in 1787 was not possible. Had they tried to ban it or not compromise the convention would have reached a standstill and likely collapsed. The Articles of Confederation would have continued and within a few years the country would have been split asunder due to the how untenable they were.

They wanted a new form of government as the old system was not working. That was the basis on the convention not to right every wrong at the time.

You think could have come up with a better system given the state of things in 1787?

[Great Algerstonia]

Both of you get back to me when Trump manages to win more votes than someone. Until then, you're just both missing the point.

I know it’s hard to think there isn’t some grand conspiracy.

The point is Trump shouldn’t have been a serious contender. His whole effort was “you are a stupid poopy face!”. She let him control the message. He had no real plans. Hell if she had a plan of action for improving the rust belt; that would have hurt badly. He would have been spewing MAGA MAGA MAGA. People would have looked at a plan…

H. blew it. I knew she was done when the Blue Wall was mentioned.

Do you even bother to look into the details of anything Right-Wing?

[Proctopeo]

It has absolutely everything to do with compromise. You accuse something of being "stupid", yet you know absolutely nothing about anything related to it. I'm impressed with your blind courage, if nothing else.

I don't think you know what "it" is. San Lumen's entire post is a non sequitur.

It makes good sense in context. You're using the term "non-sequitur" without actually knowing what it means - much like how you're criticizing the US Constitution and its authors without actually knowing anything either, nor anything related to it. I sure hope you're not an American.

It is, you just disagree with it. Can you point to specific parts of the Constitution (or the Bill of Rights) that you disagree with?

Where should I start? Maybe... all of it?

Ah, so among other things, you disagree with due process of the law and freedom of speech? Settle down there, Kim Il-Sung.

Nobody's defending slavery. How in the ever-loving fuck did you come to that conclusion? I'm legitimately baffled, so explain your thought process in detail.

That'll be "you don't realise it".

That is to say, you're making blind accusations off of a false premise.

No. Maybe... read?

Yes, you should. Watch carefully.

I claim the US constitution was designed by idiots.

You claim it is not. You further accept the contention the US Constitution was a compromise between pro and anti slave concerns.

By your own posts, the US Constitution is culpable in the institution of slavery. You object to the idea that it and its creators are called idiots. By that fact alone, you are required to accept either:

• supporting slavery isn't stupid, or
• it is possible to label the US constitution stupid because it supported slavery.

You're currently trying to do neither.

This is trainwreck of shitty logic. I like the touch where you tried to be condescending and then had nothing to back it up with, though. That was funny.

And if you try and come back with "you just think it's stupid because I disagree with it". Jesus fucking Christ. That's a nonsense. How do you think I determine whether or not something is stupid? You're parading a fact (Forsher thinks A because Forsher thinks A) as though it somehow disputes my conclusion. It doesn't. You're just describing the fact that I have a conclusion.

Your process for determining whether or not something is stupid is to see if you disagree with it. Everything else is just theater to make it look less arbitrary. It doesn't work, might I add.

I don't. This should be an obvious sign to you that your line of thinking is wholly unfounded.

No. It's a reduction of your logics to their absurd conclusion. Which I reject because I don't believe you support slavery.

No, it's more that you're on a bizarre line of thinking and refuse to believe you could possibly be mistaken, even when faced with explicit evidence to the contrary. The case here being, you've deduced that I should support slavery, but I do not support slavery. You see a flawed conclusion, and assume the other person's logic must be wrong, instead of the logic you used to reach that conclusion.

What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

i.e. your reply here is a non sequitur;

No, it makes perfect sense. Maybe... read?

In fact, you're not even disagreeing with me... but you think you are.

What the fuck are you smoking my guy? I do disagree with you - I disagree with your baseless contention that the people who designed the system are stupid, because you see the system as stupid, because you disagree with it. I also disagree with your nonsense logic, that people who disagree with you about the perceived stupidity of the system must, by definition, either themselves be stupid or support slavery.

No its not a non sequitur. You are looking years 232 years later from a totally different perspective. Ending slavery in 1787 was not possible. Had they tried to ban it or not compromise the convention would have reached a standstill and likely collapsed. The Articles of Confederation would have continued and within a few years the country would have been split asunder due to the how untenable they were.

They wanted a new form of government as the old system was not working. That was the basis on the convention not to right every wrong at the time.

You think could have come up with a better system given the state of things in 1787?

He seems to be of the mind that, if a constitution fails to correctly answer every single problem, either ones that existed at the time or were to come up later, it's inherently stupid and written by morons. If I'm going to be blunt, this is like, grade schooler levels of logic.

[The Reformed American Republic]

either calling its creators "self serving scum with no respect for the principles they are remembered fighting for" (or similar) or they're defending slavery.

I think there are more rational positions between those two, though that's not PC these days.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Articles like this are why I sometimes believe I'm in a sort of purgatory.

Say whatever you want about her, at least she is principled.