All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

having paid their debt to society can't change the fact they broke the law. Those who broke the law should not be able to elect the ones who make the laws. What if a a convicted felon wants to vote for a lawmaker who will enact a law that gives more leniency to convicted felons?

I think they should be allowed to vote again, if they are pardoned. So they need to petition for a pardon from state or federal government.

Pardons can restore the felons' voting rights.

What if someone who is thinking about committing a felony votes for laws that are more lenient towards felons? You’re making an argument that people don’t have the right to vote for their interests.

If you’re going to be selective about which rights a person gets back maybe we should five then tax relief or something

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Do you believe Trump has comitted offenses in office that are deserving of impeachment?

In office? I think you can make a case for obstruction but there is going be a lot of grey area over whether public statements by virtue of being President constitute obstruction and he was protected from the more black and white stuff. Regardless it’s coming down to a partisan interpretation and at that youareoing for obstruction on an investigation of an alleged crime that the special counsel cleared him on. Even taking Congress and politics out of it, it would be a high bar.

But the reality is it’s going to come down to a partisan vote and will come off as a partisan vote. And we already know how this ends. The House may impeach Trump but there is no chance in hell he gets kicked out of office by the Senate. Then Trump declares it a win and his base eats it up

[Tendrin]

It's a suggestion that's so unrealistic that we're all dumber for having read it.

Their are tens millions of currently and formerly convicted people in America. So here's a "good" idea, lets waste time and resources reviewing and sorting pardons for EVERY offense committed to see if they meet whatever metric is deemed appropriate for restoration of voting rights.

That is insane.

We've already seen what this would look like and it is bad.

The governor restored rights to the lowest percentage of blacks, highest percentage of Republicans in 50 years.

Howard Lee Lockett brought his wife and 9-year-old son to the state Capitol last month with a story and a hope: that Gov. Rick Scott and the Cabinet would restore his right to vote, lost after he was found guilty of aggravated battery as a 17-year-old.
In the 23 years since that crime, he has graduated from college, gotten married and become director at a technology company. Despite that, Lockett’s odds of being allowed to vote were as long as the road he took from his St. Petersburg home to Tallahassee.
That’s because Scott’s system of restoring voting rights has for years discriminated against black felons, boosting his own political prospects and those of other Republicans throughout the state, a Palm Beach Post analysis has found.

[Tendrin]

In office? I think you can make a case for obstruction but there is going be a lot of grey area over whether public statements by virtue of being President constitute obstruction and he was protected from the more black and white stuff. Regardless it’s coming down to a partisan interpretation and at that youareoing for obstruction on an investigation of an alleged crime that the special counsel cleared him on. Even taking Congress and politics out of it, it would be a high bar.

But the reality is it’s going to come down to a partisan vote and will come off as a partisan vote. And we already know how this ends. The House may impeach Trump but there is no chance in hell he gets kicked out of office by the Senate. Then Trump declares it a win and his base eats it up

Sure. And you know what? /That's okay/. If Republicans are made to do what they're actually doing in plain view and as part of an open inquiry in the face of the obvious impeachable offenses? I am okay with that. We can't only do the right thing when we're assured of if it will work or you can never do it at all.

I am not saying rush into it. But the process ought to begin. Warren is out ahead on that and it is good.

[Mister Mets]

Why the electoral college was chosen as the way to elect the President is speculation. Any notes from the Constitutional Convention on how to choose the President are a bit chaotic. It comes up and gets tabled repeatedly. Congress elects the President to one seven-year term. An elected monarch (Hamilton's idea, after which he was basically told to shut up).

The idea of electors originally came from James Wilson as a way to deal with the fact that the average voter in Massachusetts would have little knowledge of a qualified candidate from Georgia and vice versa, but that he would likely know of a well-traveled local citizen he trusted to vote on his behalf.

Other ideas came up between that and the Electoral College, but there's no connective tissue in any writing that really says how they got from A to B at the Convention. (The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were saies pitches after the fact, with the former specifically aimed at New Yorkers. They need to be taken in that context.)

It's interesting that the idea of the electors was to give obscure candidates a chance, since the first Presidents all had pretty much universal name recognition. They were in order a war hero general, the Vice President, the Vice President (a former Secretary of State), the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, a war hero general, the Vice President (a former Secretary of State), a war hero general, the former Speaker of the House, and a war hero general. By the time, we got to the likes of the more obscure Pierce and Lincoln becoming President, the party system had been clearly established.

While incarcerated they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Upon release, having served their debt to society, voting rights should immediately be restored.

I'm generally in agreement here.

I do wonder about situations where someone is given a lenient sentence. We can accept that for a variety of reasons (they were helpful to the prosecution in another case, prison overcrowding) people get out of jail faster than otherwise, but have they served their debt to society?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Sure. And you know what? /That's okay/. If Republicans are made to do what they're actually doing in plain view and as part of an open inquiry in the face of the obvious impeachable offenses? I am okay with that. We can't only do the right thing when we're assured of if it will work or you can never do it at all.

I am not saying rush into it. But the process ought to begin. Warren is out ahead on that and it is good.

Well I’m not because the last time this happened it ended up with the President gaining a groundswell of support. There’s a reason the people who are running for President and want to make bold statements are calling for it and the smartest politician in the DNC who has nothing to lose is telling everyone to cool it.

I’m not into giving him an advantage for no tangible benefit.

[KOSLOX]

It's interesting that the idea of the electors was to give obscure candidates a chance, since the first Presidents all had pretty much universal name recognition. They were in order a war hero general, the Vice President, the Vice President (a former Secretary of State), the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State, a war hero general, the Vice President (a former Secretary of State), a war hero general, the former Speaker of the House, and a war hero general. By the time, we got to the likes of the more obscure Pierce and Lincoln becoming President, the party system had been clearly established.

I'm generally in agreement here.

I do wonder about situations where someone is given a lenient sentence. We can accept that for a variety of reasons (they were helpful to the prosecution in another case, prison overcrowding) people get out of jail faster than otherwise, but have they served their debt to society?

We don't have a way of actually seeing into the mind of people to know if they've served and accepted penance to our collective satisfaction other than what the law decrees (and obviously with so many competing ideas of what acceptable punishment is that would cause a whole host of issues).

If under the law they have been determined to have served their time, so be it.

[Tendrin]

Well I’m not because the last time this happened it ended up with the President gaining a groundswell of support. There’s a reason the people who are running for President and want to make bold statements are calling for it and the smartest politician in the DNC who has nothing to lose is telling everyone to cool it.

I’m not into giving him an advantage for no tangible benefit.

There were a /lot/ of reasons for that that aren't in play here.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

There were a /lot/ of reasons for that that aren't in play here.

Are you sure or are the roles just reversed?

[Mister Mets]

Truth be told, my own memory of my financial situation having failed me (in this case, ridiculously) contributed to the framing of the discussion. Especially since my memory issue was also used to make a political point that had a sort of confirmation bias. For that, I apologize. That being said, I think the points about the issues with the tax cuts I identified are quite clearly demonstrated. Especially in the part you quoted, stating that I was addressing points you never made, even though those are the points that actually supported the tax cuts and their case. And, without those arguments, there is little to support a case for the tax cuts we got.



Ultimately, I find myself quite concerned with the fact that our definitions of middle class have shifted too idly given the decreasing purchasing power associated with an income. My idea is that anyone that struggles to make rent or pay for their childÂ’s school ought to receive a direct public benefit rather than a deliberate extraction. Given those people are middle class, by median income metrics, I think they need to be beneficiaries more than paying subjects, at least until their income is sufficient for decent purchasing power.



Certainly enough of their money though, especially if we arrive to a point where money above $500,000, $1,000,00, and, further, $10,000,000 get tax increases. There is no reason to have anyone spending an ungodly amount of money on luxury goods when we have people starving on their feet, a hernia away from bankruptcy, or, otherwise, unfortunate.



Right. But the White House proposes a budget and compromises with the Congress. What you are pointing to is that compromise on budgets has had a positive effect on fiscal responsibilty goals. WeÂ’ll see if that will happen with Democrats running the House. But, often, Democrats have been unable to yield the same political influence in the House as Republicans have.



Right. But you have to admit that the revenue is even more than federal taxes. Expenditures are high but they are often necessary. Given they are paying for it, and ripping away these programs would callous and cruel, I think it is high past time we stop looking at these items. We need to be looking at discretionary spending and the kinds of spending we do with only federal tax revenue.

I do think it is a major crisis in this country that it's taking people so long to get established, and that there is so little job security, especially in the context of these people being expected to pay for the social security needs of the generation retiring. There are some policy moves we could make to alleviate this, but I'm not sure if there is a perfect fix.

"Decent purchasing power" is a good standard, although complicated by the incredible standard of living in modern society. We've got access to cool stuff previous generations couldn't imagine.

If the middle class were beneficiaries more than paying subjects, this would probably create an expectation that the status quo will remain that way, and they'll vote accordingly on what to do with other people's money.

The White House budgets are generally wish lists. Democrats might have difficulty in budget negotiations because they typically want some kind of spending program, and it's easy for Republicans to just say no.

I think it's important to look at all the sources of spending. I agree that social Security should be distinct, since it does pay for itself; we should make sure to keep it solvent but never use the money for anything else. Eliminating most forms of spending has major tradeoffs, so it doesn't seem like an adequate excuse to declare discretionary spending off-limits when this applies as well to a lot of other things, and tough choices will have to be made.

[Tendrin]

Are you sure or are the roles just reversed?

I dunno. Is trump a widely liked, charismatic politician who is being hung up on technicalities in a merely embarrassing situation by obvious hypocrites who were all doing the same thing? It's easy to forget why Clinton gained support at the time. Those factors are not in in play. There are a different set of challenges ahead of us. We need to be clear eyed about those rather than fretting a replay of the Clinton ordeal.

[ZombieHavoc]

Let's make it so that the communities most effected by, say, police impunity and overpolicing have a proprotionally harder time acting against that.

I mean, that's pretty much what the people who started this country had in mind.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I dunno. Is trump a widely liked, charismatic politician who is being hung up on technicalities in a merely embarrassing situation by obvious hypocrites who were all doing the same thing? It's easy to forget why Clinton gained support at the time. Those factors are not in in play. There are a different set of challenges ahead of us. We need to be clear eyed about those rather than fretting a replay of the Clinton ordeal.

Widely liked by a 1/3rd of the country who refuse to waiver from him. Charismatic? He got elected by giving pro wrestling promos. Hung up on technicalities? I’m willing to bet a small fortune that is precisely the argument Republicans will make that their President is being railroaded because he said some things publicly that may have obstructed an investigation into a crime he was ultimately cleared of.

Ultimately the result will be the same. You will have an impeachment process that goes strictly down partisan lines and will ultimately fall in the Senate.

There are very real risks here for a game you start out knowing that there is no big win at the end.

[Tendrin]

Widely liked by a 1/3rd of the country who refuse to waiver from him. Charismatic? He got elected by giving pro wrestling promos. Hung up on technicalities? I’m willing to bet a small fortune that is precisely the argument Republicans will make that their President is being railroaded because he said some things publicly that may have obstructed an investigation into a crime he was ultimately cleared of.

Ultimately the result will be the same. You will have an impeachment process that goes strictly down partisan lines and will ultimately fall in the Senate.

There are very real risks here for a game you start out knowing that there is no big win at the end.

I said widely liked, not backed by a narrow 23% of the electorate. The racists are never gonna back down on Trump and the rest of us can't either. It will probably fall in the Senate, yes, but that doesn't matter. Not doing anything because it's assured of failure because 'Repbulicans' is just a bad idea.

I think you must also consider the very real risks in /not/ impeaching him.

[Dalak]

Widely liked by a 1/3rd of the country who refuse to waiver from him. Charismatic? He got elected by giving pro wrestling promos. Hung up on technicalities? I’m willing to bet a small fortune that is precisely the argument Republicans will make that their President is being railroaded because he said some things publicly that may have obstructed an investigation into a crime he was ultimately cleared of.

Ultimately the result will be the same. You will have an impeachment process that goes strictly down partisan lines and will ultimately fall in the Senate.

There are very real risks here for a game you start out knowing that there is no big win at the end.

This is a complete reversal of what you've said on the 2nd amendment, something that would be a much harder fight with the payoff even more unlikely. Going after the 2nd would also embolden even more opponents and drum up far more resistance, while requiring even more support in Congress as well as the States.

Suddenly when Trump's on the line, we have to be conservative in our goals . . . interesting.

I said widely liked, not backed by a narrow 23% of the electorate. The racists are never gonna back down on Trump and the rest of us can't either. It will probably fall in the Senate, yes, but that doesn't matter. Not doing anything because it's assured of failure because 'Repbulicans' is just a bad idea.

I think you must also consider the very real risks in /not/ impeaching him.

I agree, just keep investigating him and don't start the articles quite yet. Putting the squeeze on Trump and showing how weak he really is will erode more of his support than impeachment will embolden IMO.