All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Mister Mets]

American Politics is dominated by the idea of a 2-party system. yet there seems to be a backlash forming against it.

If America eliminated the 2-party system in favor the system I'll outline below, could it work?

Alternative:

Imagine an alternate version of American Politics where all political parties are illegal. Instead, candidates run on their own for public office.

In the case of Presidential Elections, there are still two voting periods. However, the first one is designed to eliminate the majority of candidates, leaving only the top 2. The 2 who received the most votes will then have time to campaign until another vote is held to choose which of the two wins.

As for Congress, there is no majority or minority. At the start of each Congressional session, the members will vote to elect A House Speaker and a Senate Leader. Members of Congress can form alliances based on shared interests or in opposition to the actions of others.

I think there are some problems with the system you're setting up.

You would very quickly have de facto parties. If parties are outlawed, and candidate John Smith promises to vote for Paul Ryan as Speaker, we would conclude that he is the equivalent of a Republican.

There could be some advantages, with more shifting alliances than we currently have, when there's less of a perception of partisanship with certain actions. It would be a bigger deal for a Senator to go from the Republican party to the Democratic party than to change the individual who they're backing.

An issue with top two jungle primaries is that it can allow for crazies to win. In the French presidential elections, one of the two final slots has often gone to a white nationalist party. In Louisiana in 1993, the final two in the gubernatorial race ended up being Edwin Edwards, a former Governor who had been indicted, and David Duke.

[PaulBullion]

I think there are some problems with the system you're setting up.

You would very quickly have de facto parties. If parties are outlawed, and candidate John Smith promises to vote for Paul Ryan as Speaker, we would conclude that he is the equivalent of a Republican.

You and I might conclude that.

But we are talking about an electorate that has a vague idea that Hillary is "corrupt" and that Trump embodies Christian values, in absence of facts supporting either belief. Do you really think they would go to the trouble to figure out where each candidate stands?

They would probably still vote for the one they know from TV, or the one they'd most like to drink a beer with. It would still be a disaster.

[Ragged Maw]

I think there are some problems with the system you're setting up.

You would very quickly have de facto parties. If parties are outlawed, and candidate John Smith promises to vote for Paul Ryan as Speaker, we would conclude that he is the equivalent of a Republican.

There could be some advantages, with more shifting alliances than we currently have, when there's less of a perception of partisanship with certain actions. It would be a bigger deal for a Senator to go from the Republican party to the Democratic party than to change the individual who they're backing.

An issue with top two jungle primaries is that it can allow for crazies to win. In the French presidential elections, one of the two final slots has often gone to a white nationalist party. In Louisiana in 1993, the final two in the gubernatorial race ended up being Edwin Edwards, a former Governor who had been indicted, and David Duke.

One other issue. Aren't humans hardwired to favor group identity? Granted, one could put constant day-to-day effort in recognizing and resisting it in themselves, but that can be tricky.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump was right about his words playing well with some of his "base".

------
"WHITE NATIONALISTS PRAISE TRUMP FOR ‘SHITHOLE’ COMMENT: ‘IT’S OBVIOUSLY ALL ABOUT RACE’"

"President Donald Trump’s already infamous “shithole” comment is among several remarks the commander in chief has made that have energized white supremacists, rights groups fear.

Trump made the comment Thursday in the context of asking why America should accept more immigrants from Haiti and Africa—instead of places like Norway—while discussing a bipartisan immigration deal with lawmakers. The remark reinvigorated accusations that Trump is a racist, and it was embraced online by white supremacists David Duke and Richard Spencer.

[Richard] Spencer, who in an apparent nod to the president’s remarks put the Norwegian flag in his Twitter handle, complimented Trump for focusing on immigration from a race-based perspective.

“It’s obviously all about race, and to their credit, liberals point out the obvious,” Spencer wrote on Twitter, referring to the blowback to the president’s remark.

On Twitter, [David] Duke called what Trump said “perfect,” adding that the president “spoke Blunt, hard truth that makes PERFECT TRUTH! So, Mr. Prez -ACT ON IT - DON'T CAVE IN!”

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-shitho...-praise-779958

It’s funny. Trump’s “shithole” comment is playing well with white surpemacists and his base, yet he’s gone out of his way to deny saying what he did. His track record of racism is already well known, so why deny the obvious?

[Ragged Maw]

It’s funny. Trump’s “shithole” comment is playing well with white surpemacists and his base, yet he’s gone out of his way to deny saying what he did. His track record of racism is already well known, so why deny the obvious?

If he's not a racist, then he's certainly a magnet for those types.

[Joker]

He's a racist. His father was in the goddamn Klan. You don't grow up with a father in the Klan and not get taught at home to be racist.

Sure, some people don't follow their parents ideals, but look at the **** Trump says. He's a racist.

AND! You don't appeal to racists if you're not a racist.

[Ragged Maw]

He's a racist. His father was in the goddamn Klan. You don't grow up with a father in the Klan and not get taught at home to be racist.

Sure, some people don't follow their parents ideals, but look at the **** Trump says. He's a racist.

AND! You don't appeal to racists if you're not a racist.

Well he's the "eye of the shitstorm" any way you look at it. On that note, maybe this plus the nonstop criticism and all the stress of the job will convince him to not seek reelection, thinking 4 years is good enough to call it a day. Plus maybe in his mind, he technically won't "lose" if he doesn't run to begin with. Most realistic best-case scenario I can think of.

[ouroboros]

I don't think "sexualizing your own toddlers" is in the definition of what constitutes a narcissist. Please don't excuse and/or normalize pedophilia.

Man, you'll make up any nonsense to cover yourself, won't you? Like ignoring the fact that Ivanka was not a child.

You have a lot in common with "Cheeto Jesus."

[Mister Mets]

Aziz Ansari accused of sexual assault.

Very disturbing content there.

What specifically was the sexual assault?

You and I might conclude that.

But we are talking about an electorate that has a vague idea that Hillary is "corrupt" and that Trump embodies Christian values, in absence of facts supporting either belief. Do you really think they would go to the trouble to figure out where each candidate stands?

They would probably still vote for the one they know from TV, or the one they'd most like to drink a beer with. It would still be a disaster.

That brings up a different issue with the plan to get rid of political parties.

For all their flaws, parties are an effective way for voters to get useful information about candidates. A pro-choice voter who wants more domestic spending and Trump impeached ASAP might rather have a beer with a particular Republican candidate, but could figure correctly that the Democrat is more likely to support the policies he wants.

[aja_christopher]

Well he's the "eye of the shitstorm" any way you look at it. On that note, maybe this plus the nonstop criticism and all the stress of the job will convince him to not seek reelection, thinking 4 years is good enough to call it a day. Plus maybe in his mind, he technically won't "lose" if he doesn't run to begin with. Most realistic best-case scenario I can think of.

Not me -- if he's done half the things I've seen him accused of doing (harassment, collusion, money laundering, obstruction of justice, etc) then I want to see him behind bars.

Permanently.

I know it's not likely but I want to see justice done on a national and international level if only to let the rest of the world know that we don't tolerate treasonous criminals fucking with our democracy.

[ouroboros]

Regarding the Trump shithole comments...

It can be seen as Trump saying what a lot of people are thinking, which has always been part of his appeal. There are going to be plenty of Americans who like what he said, and some conservative defenses of a more nuanced view (just as there will be liberal attacks on the implications.)

It may cause significant political damage because while some mostly white people may think he was right, they might not going to be as motivated by the comments as the international community, or immigrant groups in the United States (as well as anyone who thinks his comments are about race rather than, say, education level of the typical immigrant).

It's troubling because an individual's character or ability to contribute to the United States is not determined by where they came from. That's not really a conversation his administration wants to have, while trying to get legislative support for immigration moves.

A lot of the coverage suggests that it's an effort to motivate the base, but this wasn't something Trump issued as a statement to the public. It was part of a conversation with lawmakers, which is a different context (He could've been saying something he knew would get out, or it could have just been his views/ advocacy for his base.)

I'm not attempting to prove Trump isn't a racist. Yet his remarks remind me of his penchant for wanting to honor only "winners," as per his denigrating remarks on John McCain.

Has he ever made denigrating comments about persons from the Indian subcontinent?

[Ragged Maw]

Not me -- if he's done half the things I've seen him accused of doing (harassment, collusion, money laundering, obstruction of justice, etc) then I want to see him behind bars.

Permanently.

I know it's not likely but I want to see justice done on a national and international level if only to let the rest of the world know that we don't tolerate treasonous criminals fucking with our democracy.

Most understandable. Setting a strong enough example so that (most of) the citizenry can continue placing faith in the country may work wonders.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Not me -- if he's done half the things I've seen him accused of doing (harassment, collusion, money laundering, obstruction of justice, etc) then I want to see him behind bars.

Permanently.

I know it's not likely but I want to see justice done on a national and international level if only to let the rest of the world know that we don't tolerate treasonous criminals fucking with our democracy.

Sadly, the notion of Trump facing any sort of punishment is unlikely. If a Republican wins the White House in 2020, he’ll simply pardon Trump from any crimes he’s accused of committing, even if a Democrat wins, Republicans in Congress would roadblock any investigation of criminal activities.

I'm not attempting to prove Trump isn't a racist. Yet his remarks remind me of his penchant for wanting to honor only "winners," as per his denigrating remarks on John McCain.

Has he ever made denigrating comments about persons from the Indian subcontinent?

I don’t think he has, which I find curious since Trump has insulted practically every non-white race in the book.

[PaulBullion]

1. The plaintiffs may have had no choice but to take whatever deal Trump's attorneys offered them. When you're facing the prospect of going broke trying to fight the legal team of a billionaire, you may decide to take an out of court settlement that includes a gag order just to survive.

2.It wasn't just Trump suggested he would date Ivanka. (And of course, date is a euphemism for ****.) There was also that Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous clip where Trump speculated on what Tiffany's breasts would look like when she grew up. And she wasn't a teenager at the time. She wasn't even in grade school. She was one year old. One year old! Who does that?

(1) I don't have a problem so much with the plaintiffs taking a deal, as with people considering that their case has been proven in spite of their taking the deal.

(2) Who does that? A narcissist with no taste, obviously. But so far he's not been successfully branded with the Roy Moore charge, and there might be a reason for that.

I don't think "sexualizing your own toddlers" is in the definition of what constitutes a narcissist. Please don't excuse and/or normalize pedophilia.

Man, you'll make up any nonsense to cover yourself, won't you? Like ignoring the fact that Ivanka was not a child.

You have a lot in common with "Cheeto Jesus."

Tiffany was a child. Which is what you replied to. And your reply did not condemn the clear pedophilia, but normalized it as part of narcissism.

Your way of arguing and ignoring things that were said seems a lot more Trumpian than my pointing out what happened.

[Gray Lensman]

I don’t think he has, which I find curious since Trump has insulted practically every non-white race in the book.

I'm not sure if he can be bothered to tell them apart from the other groups he spends his time insulting.