All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[thwhtGuardian]

I can understand the concern that some people will vote in primaries acting in bad faith (IE- Republicans entering a competitive Democratic primary in order to get a weaker opponent for the general election.)

This would probably be less of a problem with increased turnout in primaries, as the people so politically involved that they'll change their registration to vote against a candidate are always going to be a small percentage of the population. By making it easier for people who aren't that political to participate in primaries, you are diluting the power of political activists.

You continue to cut out major portions of my responses. You're also putting a word in quotation marks that I haven't used.

We might be arguing past one another, as I'm focused on what determines the identity of the individual elected to the office, and believe that to be the important thing. Either you want to make it easier for voters to make that decision or not. Surely you recognize that in American politics, the individual elected to an office is more often than not settled in the primary and not in the general election.

No one's really arguing against my main point. If the goal is to get more people involved in deciding which individuals represent them in legislative or executive offices, we should encourage the highest possible turnout in primaries, as well as in the general election in November. If your policy preference only involves getting the highest possible turnout in the final stage of the process, something else is in play, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

I don't really see a difference between small and big elections, especially when the so-called small elections determine the majority of the results.

It seems to be pretext for people who want Democrats to win.

To be sure, I don't really know what the outcomes will be if Election Day is a national holiday, or if it becomes significantly easier to vote in primaries. Whatever our preference is on the process shouldn't be based on the outcome.

I don't think it's a conspiracy, as much as hypocrisy, people acting in their own interests while claiming a higher principle.

I don't see a pretext here...just someone pointing out that if we can't get the Presidential Election made into a Federal holiday that everyone has off then the odds are poor for getting other elections off.

But all that aside, making it easier for everyone to participate in the election process is a higher principle of good and I don't see how it can be argued otherwise and if it's a true good than what does it matter if the reason for pushing for it is self serving?

[PwrdOn]

I pulled that out of my butt; I did not realize this actually happened.

Regardless, at least they made an effort despite how much of a disaster it turned out. I still would want to see a country operated with minimal government intervention and taxes not being a priority of capital income try to operate without everything being broken down and at least a quarter of the population starving.

But, America is often like that, despite the whining from right-wingers. I'm not saying we should be a place that has high taxation, but when everything feels broken down and a good portion of the population is starving despite us being a capitalist society, it's not exactly worth bragging about.

The fact that everything is broken down and non-functional is kind of a feature and not a bug of capitalism though. We live in a complex world, and there is always going to be someone out there whose basic needs aren't being met, so regardless of how many resources we sink into combating poverty, hunger, disease, or what have you, there is always going to be some pocket of people that isn't being adequately served, which means that we'll never reach the point we can spend any additional surplus on luxuries and conveniences without guilt, because somewhere out there is a person who is more needy than we are. Capitalism resolves this by insisting that it is justified, and in fact even preferable, that we simply ignore the needs of less fortunate so that people with means can live the good life, and while that obviously sounds monstrous this has also provided us with most of the creature comforts we take for granted these days. The difference nowadays is that mainstream Americans, who always took it as a given that we'd be the beneficiaries of this unequal system, are increasingly finding themselves as part of the exploited class, something that was only ever meant for other people living in dirty third world countries we don't want to think about too much.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Florida's GOP just got crazier

Florida introducing new laws allowing citizens to shoot ‘looters and rioters’

How many 'good guys with a gun' will see this as a license to kill anyone they think is rioting?

[Mister Mets]

Where to even begin?

1) Should there ever be traction to get Election Day made into a national holiday and so on, there will obviously be "grandfather clauses" to make sure that the new reform doesn't give a direct advantage to the party who platformed on it or is likely to benefit from it directly.

2) In other words, it's not a law that when passed would give the Dems an immediate direct tactical advantage in their immediate political future.

For example: if ED reform and amendment is passed in 2022 lets' say, then that doesn't mean it will go into effect in 2024. That will still be under 2020 rules. It would go in effect in 2028, and that's enough of a playing field between both parties to shape and modify their message by then.

When the Republicans passed Presidential term limits during the Truman administration, they grandfathered it so that Truman was exempt. Theoretically, Truman could have run for multiple terms but his unpopularity after 1948 didn't make that likely. So the first POTUS directly restricted by term limits was a Republican President, Eisenhower.

This argument is stupid.

I think we're arguing past one another on something, because I'm not sure how grandfathering matters here. You seem to be addressing a concern I don't really have.

My sense is that Democrats in general believe that if Election Day were a national holiday, they would get a greater percentage of the vote, because they think that their policies have greater appeal to the ordinary men and women who are not generally politically engaged, or otherwise unable to take the time to go and vote. This would apply for the 2028 election as much as it does for the 2024 election.

I should note that I didn't consider that anyone would think this should be limited to the presidential election. I figured it would be an annual Holiday, as there are midterms and various off-year elections.

I do suspect that progressives who think it's going to help Democrats if Election Day were a national holiday may be mistaken on this, but that's another story. In addition, the turnout in 2020 suggests there are other methods (mail-in vote with clear records, early voting centers, etc) of getting higher participation than giving everyone a day off for something that doesn't take that long.

Giving campaigns several years to prepare for a potential change in electorate doesn't really matter. This isn't a restriction on any campaign, so there's no need for exceptions.

There might be some changes on uniformity to various special elections. More states would likely have policies that if there's a vacancy, the election for the seat will be in November rather than on a new date.

I don't see a pretext here...just someone pointing out that if we can't get the Presidential Election made into a Federal holiday that everyone has off then the odds are poor for getting other elections off.

But all that aside, making it easier for everyone to participate in the election process is a higher principle of good and I don't see how it can be argued otherwise and if it's a true good than what does it matter if the reason for pushing for it is self serving?

It's a higher principle for good if the reason for wanting to do it is to make it easier for everyone to participate at the major stages. It's a pretext if the reason for wanting to do this is because you think it'll help your preferred candidates, and if you're simultaneously limiting participation in major stages because that will also help your preferred candidates.

It's self-serving if the only time it becomes easier to participate is when it's Democrats VS Republicans, as opposed to the primary when the majority of members of Congress are ultimately selected.

[thwhtGuardian]

I think we're arguing past one another on something, because I'm not sure how grandfathering matters here. You seem to be addressing a concern I don't really have.

My sense is that Democrats in general believe that if Election Day were a national holiday, they would get a greater percentage of the vote, because they think that their policies have greater appeal to the ordinary men and women who are not generally politically engaged, or otherwise unable to take the time to go and vote. This would apply for the 2028 election as much as it does for the 2024 election.

I should note that I didn't consider that anyone would think this should be limited to the presidential election. I figured it would be an annual Holiday, as there are midterms and various off-year elections.

I do suspect that progressives who think it's going to help Democrats if Election Day were a national holiday may be mistaken on this, but that's another story. In addition, the turnout in 2020 suggests there are other methods (mail-in vote with clear records, early voting centers, etc) of getting higher participation than giving everyone a day off for something that doesn't take that long.

Giving campaigns several years to prepare for a potential change in electorate doesn't really matter. This isn't a restriction on any campaign, so there's no need for exceptions.

There might be some changes on uniformity to various special elections. More states would likely have policies that if there's a vacancy, the election for the seat will be in November rather than on a new date.




It's a higher principle for good if the reason for wanting to do it is to make it easier for everyone to participate at the major stages. It's a pretext if the reason for wanting to do this is because you think it'll help your preferred candidates, and if you're simultaneously limiting participation in major stages because that will also help your preferred candidates.

It's self-serving if the only time it becomes easier to participate is when it's Democrats VS Republicans, as opposed to the primary when the majority of members of Congress are ultimately selected.

It can't be bad though if the result is good is what I'm getting at. If the end result is more people are having their voices heard who cares what the motivation for making it happen might be?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

My sense is that Democrats in general believe that if Election Day were a national holiday, they would get a greater percentage of the vote, because they think that their policies have greater appeal to the ordinary men and women who are not generally politically engaged, or otherwise unable to take the time to go and vote. This would apply for the 2028 election as much as it does for the 2024 election.

Okay, but do you believe that? A real conservative would believe that its policies can appeal and speak to the masses as well. It would welcome a greater turnout to vindicate its beliefs.

[Mister Mets]

Okay, but do you believe that? A real conservative would believe that its policies can appeal and speak to the masses as well. It would welcome a greater turnout to vindicate its beliefs.

I can't say for certain what would happen. I do suspect that if we had higher turnout, Republicans could do better, because people who don't follow politics all that much would be exposed to controversial left-wing arguments. They also tend to be naturally cynical about the role of government.

Turnout was really high this cycle, and Trump did better than expected, as did congressional Republicans, in an unfavorable political environment, so there's some evidence of this.

I'm not actually sure that making Election Day a national holiday will increase turnout substantively. Many people will just take advantage of the day off, and perhaps take the Monday off to get a four day weekend.

It can't be bad though if the result is good is what I'm getting at. If the end result is more people are having their voices heard who cares what the motivation for making it happen might be?

People's voices would only be heard for part of the process, and not always the part of the process that matters in terms of determining their elected officials.

If you live in Harlem or rural Wyoming, the relevant elections were probably settled in the primaries.

[thwhtGuardian]

I can't say for certain what would happen. I do suspect that if we had higher turnout, Republicans could do better, because people who don't follow politics all that much would be exposed to controversial left-wing arguments. They also tend to be naturally cynical about the role of government.

Turnout was really high this cycle, and Trump did better than expected, as did congressional Republicans, in an unfavorable political environment, so there's some evidence of this.

I'm not actually sure that making Election Day a national holiday will increase turnout substantively. Many people will just take advantage of the day off, and perhaps take the Monday off to get a four day weekend.

People's voices would only be heard for part of the process, and not always the part of the process that matters in terms of determining their elected officials.

If you live in Harlem or rural Wyoming, the relevant elections were probably settled in the primaries.

And those should be open to all as well...I think the only one saying the other elections shouldn't be holidays as well are the voices in your mind as it hasn't been suggested by anyone here that I've seen. All I've seen are statements that because conservative politicians are against even talking about making Presidential elections Federal holidays that it's a joke to think they'd be for it on other elections...which seems about right.

But all of that sidesteps the larger point in that, who cares if the people pushing for might have ulterior motives if the end result is for the good?

[numberthirty]

That's the thing with Republicans, even nominally Biden-voting ones, the total lack of responsibility and failure to hold its own party and ideology to account. The Dems spend all time fighting and holding its party to account for its betrayals and inter-party hypocrisy all the while moderate Republicans like Romney and Collins among others do nothing of real significance.

Come on, this assertion is straight up laughable.

If you actually believe this to be the case, you should be able to make a list of the Democrats who called for the other Democrats who had just kept their lips zipped about Congress having a "Keep The Victims Quite..." payoff racket for anyone who had sexually harassed staff to step down.

Think about the names on that actual list, and the rethink the idea that they are even remotely about holding their own party to actual account.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

...

1) I was referrring to Dem-voters, and not the Dem party.

2) Include me out of your online crusade. You tell me nothing I do not already know, you offer no narrative that surprises me, you offer no argument germane to what I said.

[numberthirty]

1) I was referrring to Dem-voters, and not the Dem party.

2) Include me out of your online crusade. You tell me nothing I do not already know, you offer no narrative that surprises me, you offer no argument germane to what I said.

Uh, "OK..." I guess?

It is a discussion forum.

[numberthirty]

And I thought that other states were bad at vote counting...

Underwood is now in the lead, and Oberweis is apparently putting money together for a "Recount..." effort.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columni...-up-3496-votes

Lauren Underwood increases lead over Jim Oberweis in Illinois Congress contest: up by 3,524 votes

[Iron Maiden]

Florida's GOP just got crazier

Florida introducing new laws allowing citizens to shoot ‘looters and rioters’

How many 'good guys with a gun' will see this as a license to kill anyone they think is rioting?

This is insanity.

[Tami]

State Department is preventing Biden from accessing messages from foreign leaders

Washington (CNN)A stack of messages from foreign leaders to President-elect Joe Biden are sitting at the State Department but the Trump administration is preventing him from accessing them, according to State Department officials familiar with the messages.

Traditionally, the State Department supports all communications for the President-elect, which is why many countries began sending messages to State over the weekend. But with Biden prohibited from accessing State Department resources by the Trump administration, because President Donald Trump refuses to accept Biden's victory, dozens of incoming messages have not been received.

Biden's team is contacting foreign governments on their own and he has held numerous calls with leaders, including Germany's Angela Merkel and Canada's Justin Trudeau. But they are operating without the logistical and translation support that the State Department operations center provides.

[Steel Inquisitor]

The fact that everything is broken down and non-functional is kind of a feature and not a bug of capitalism though. We live in a complex world, and there is always going to be someone out there whose basic needs aren't being met, so regardless of how many resources we sink into combating poverty, hunger, disease, or what have you, there is always going to be some pocket of people that isn't being adequately served, which means that we'll never reach the point we can spend any additional surplus on luxuries and conveniences without guilt, because somewhere out there is a person who is more needy than we are. Capitalism resolves this by insisting that it is justified, and in fact even preferable, that we simply ignore the needs of less fortunate so that people with means can live the good life, and while that obviously sounds monstrous this has also provided us with most of the creature comforts we take for granted these days. The difference nowadays is that mainstream Americans, who always took it as a given that we'd be the beneficiaries of this unequal system, are increasingly finding themselves as part of the exploited class, something that was only ever meant for other people living in dirty third world countries we don't want to think about too much.

Capitalism is far from perfect, but Communism isn't the answer. It's not like that ideology hasn't had problems with bureaucracy (for example, Chernobyol) or issues helping its less fortunate citizens.



Its not like Communism has figured out how to be fair to all people, quite the opposite.