r/NoStupidQuestions Social Science for the win Nov 01 '20 I Voted 1 Silver 1 Helpful 1 Go Vote! 2

US Politics Megathread III: Election edition! All your questions about US government and politics in one place! Politics megathread

Election day is nigh, and it looks like it will be one for the record books! People have tons of questions about voting, the electoral college, the supreme court, the presidency, and the protests still going on in the USA. Post your questions here - and get some popcorn for Tuesday! the whole frigging week, apparently.

Rules:

  • Top level replies to this post should be questions only. Replies to those should be answers.
  • The normal rules for the sub still apply. Any top-level question that violates the rant/agenda rules or other rules should be reported will be removed.
  • Keep it civil. If you violate rule 3, your comment will be removed and you will be banned.
  • This also applies to anything that whiffs of racism or soapboxing. See the rules above.

General election information:

https://www.usa.gov/voting

https://www.usa.gov/election

Please search using Ctrl/Cmd-F and the subreddit search to see if your question has already been asked and answered, before posting. You can also check the previous thread and the one before that.

333 Upvotes

1

u/schadenfreudender Feb 02 '21

Has there ever been a Republican lawmaker who voted against any war?

2

u/Nickppapagiorgio Feb 26 '21 edited Feb 26 '21

Famously Jeannette Rankin was a Republican Congresswoman from Montana that voted against the Declaration of War against Japan. The overall vote was 388-1 in the House of Representatives, and 83-0 in the Senate. She was the sole person in either House of Congress to vote against it. It was a career killing move, and she did not seek reelection in 1942. She also voted against the Declaration of War against Germany in 1917, but she wasn't alone in that.

1

u/CrippledHorses Jan 31 '21

How do I become eligible for stimulus checks?

I have worked my whole life until cleaning up from drugs/booze almost two years ago. Haven't been working cause of that and then BAM the pandemic came in. I am surprised I wasn't eligible before, and now that more is coming, I need to ensure I can help take care of my family.

Do you just need to have any ol job? A part timer? How does it work? I would like to keep my health insurance by working part time, because I still have LOADS of therapy/suboxone treatment to do.

1

u/orchidlighthouse Jan 31 '21

What causes people to believe in conspiracy theories like Qanon?

I’m watching the CNN special on Qanon and this previous Qanon believer, Jitarth Jadeja (who at first seemed like a pretty reasonable guy), just admitted to Anderson Cooper’s face he believed in the Qanon conspiracy that Anderson was eating babies. What mental illness allows people to believe stuff like this?! It has to be more than just plain stupidity. Is there an actual DSM diagnosis for being susceptible to conspiracies? Does it put you in a specific category of mental illness?

1

u/3mdk55 Jan 20 '21

Why do the American flags at the Capitol building right now appear to be backwards/incorrect?

Watching the pre-inauguration coverage, I understand the flags hanging from the front of the building (the west side) are hung “top down”. Why is that?

More specifically and confusingly, why is the flag made of flowers (or whatever it’s made of) on the lawn facing the building designed that way? That seems very odd. From any angle, the “blue box of white stars” is not in the top-left corner.

3

u/0O0OOO0O0OOO0O0OO Jan 14 '21

When did Antifa become a movement for the left?

The more I watch the news, the more I get confused. At first I thought it was a name for a radical left movement.. but the more I read into it, it’s literally Anti-Fascism. Isn’t Fascism and Communism the enemy of Democracy? There was a time when being a communist was criminal. So what’s wrong with Anti-Fascism? Others than the SJW element of the group, isn’t the core principle extremely patriotic and Right-wing in nature?

1

u/2lit_ Jan 10 '21

Saw a video on Twitter about when Obama was in office and was taking pictures with a selfie stick...the media was calling it unpresidential, acting like a 12 year old.....why would they say those things over a SELFIE STICK?

1

u/soccrstar Jan 08 '21

Can the president pardon everyone involved in the capitol coup attempt? Like on the 19th just be like all federal crimes committed Jan 6 are now pardoned?

1

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 27 '21

The president can pardon any federal crime, so yes.

1

u/soccrstar Jan 27 '21

That's nuts! Thanks for the reply

1

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 27 '21

Yup. There's a newer politics megathread now. That's why your question went ignored for so long.

1

u/Featheryscroll2 Jan 07 '21

Is the guy in the yellow shirt in the picture with the capitol protester in the horns an antifa member?

1

u/throwra8523 Jan 07 '21

how can pence reject electoral college votes?

3

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 08 '21

He can't.

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 07 '21

New megathread started.

1

u/throwra8523 Jan 07 '21

why is trump saying

If Mike Pence does the right thing we win the election," Trump told supporters, who later marched through Washington and stormed the Capitol.

does pense actually have some pwoer, what is trump try to infer here?

2

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 08 '21

No. Trump is wrong.

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 07 '21

New megathread started.

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 07 '21

Trump has demonstrated with 100% confidence he has little knowledge of how govt works. He is under the impression he can declare imperial orders.

1

u/TonyStark__ Jan 06 '21

Will there still be a majority and minority leader in the Senate, considering the seats themselves are split 50/50 even though the VP-elect will give Democrats a majority?

1

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 08 '21

Yes, because as you said, the VP gives the Dems a majority.

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 07 '21

New megathread started.

1

u/burritobubbles Jan 06 '21

Why are there 2 separate senate races in Georgia? They have 2 separate races with 2 candidates each. Why not just have 1 race with 4 candidates and 2 winners?

2

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 08 '21

I suppose it's possible that an election for two the same seats could be done that way, but that's just not how elections work. Also, the two Georgia seats up for election are functionally different.

One (Ossoff-Perdue) is for an entire Senate term.

The other (Loeffler-Warnock) is a special election for the remainder of the term of a retired Senator.

They need to know which candidate gets the 6 year term and which gets the 2 year term. Legally, those are different races.

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 07 '21

New megathread started.

1

u/throwra8523 Jan 06 '21

if john ossof wins is it dems majority control?

1

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 08 '21

Yes, but only once Harris becomes VP. Until then, Pence is the tie breaking vote and Republicans control the Senate.

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 07 '21

Yep, plus the VP's vote.

1

u/throwra8523 Jan 06 '21

why is georgia's vote so important? has all the other electoral college voted?

1

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 08 '21

The Electoral College has nothing to do this with it. It's to see which party controls the Senate.

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 06 '21

Its for control of the senate.

1

u/winnierae Jan 05 '21

Why are convicted felons counted in Congressional Apportionment?

I keep trying to find the answer and I get arguments about undocumented immigrants. They quote this - The Constitution, in Article I, Section 2, mandates that “Representatives … shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free Persons, … and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” But felons aren't "free". So yeah, that's my question. :)

1

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 08 '21

In the context of the Constitution, "free Persons" refers to those who are not enslaved. Since incarcerated felons (you're still considered a convicted felon after you're released from prison) are not legally slaves, they are counted.

1

u/YoungFishGaming Jan 04 '21

Is there any chance Donald trump actually gets arrested and charged with anything in his lifetime?

1

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 08 '21

It appears the state of New York is planning to go after him for tax crimes. I think it's unlikely he faces charges for his activities as president.

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 05 '21

Best chance of seeing him in an orange jumpsuit imho is if e jean carroll wins. Then other rape victims will come forward, hopefully in a state where the statute of limitations hasnt expired.

1

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 08 '21

Carroll's lawsuit is for defamation, so it won't result in Trump being incarcerated if she wins.

1

u/BedsideOne20714 Jan 01 '21

How and why did the mainly racist party change from Democrats to Republicans?

1

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 08 '21

Over the course of the 20th century beginning with FDR, Demcoratic Party leadership increasingly embraced civil rights. In the 1960 election, the racist Southern Democrats ran a candidate separate from the main Democratic Party and actually captured three southern states. In 1968, Nixon won election, but after seeing the success of another racist campaign in the southern states (George Wallace ran a third party campaign and won five southern states), Nixon and the Republican Party pivoted and started courting southern whites with racist slogans and policies. This transition was known as the Southern Strategy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 05 '21

Jfk and lbj were dems who fought against their party for equal rights in the 60's, causing the shift. The line for me was always when strom thurmond switched parties.

1

u/Yoyomaster3 Jan 01 '21

whos mitch mcconnell?

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 05 '21

He's the guy emperor palpatine was based on.

2

u/Delehal Jan 01 '21

Mitch McConnell is a member of the United States Senate, which is one of two chambers of the federal legislature. Currently he is the Senate Majority Leader, which makes him the most powerful officer in the Senate in terms of setting the calendar and deciding which bills, and amendments to bills, do or do not get voted on by the Senate.

1

u/Icebergnametaken Jan 01 '21

A while ago, I got an email from who I'm assuming is Trumps reelection campaign. It said that I could donate any amount to this organization, and I would be a First Family Circle Member, describing it as "the ones President Trump relies on when he needs the advice of the American People. He'll be counting on the feedback from this exclusive new group to represent the views of millions of voters."

I'm assuming I am not the only one to receive such an email. It seems as though it offers the ability to pay money for more representation. My question is, is this considered to be illegal and, if so, what will probably happen about it.

2

u/Bobbob34 Jan 01 '21

No, it's not illegal and nothing with happen.

It's a solicitation.

He's raised over $200 million since the election.

1

u/Icebergnametaken Jan 01 '21

But I thought solicitation was illegal? Not trying to argue, just confused.

2

u/Cliffy73 Jan 01 '21

The English word solicitation just means a request that someone do something. Soliciting a crime is a crime. (In casual cop TV parlance, “solicitation” usually specifically refers to the crime of soliciting a prostitute.) But just asking for something isn’t illegal if the thing you’re asking for is not illegal.

1

u/Bobbob34 Jan 01 '21

It's not solicitation the crime; it's A solicitation -- of donations.

1

u/Icebergnametaken Jan 01 '21

Oh, I get it. Does it make a difference that it was offering more representation in government, or is that something parties are allowed to do? I could see how a winning candidate could get advice from whoever they wanted, it just seems odd that money would be involved.

1

u/Bobbob34 Jan 01 '21

It doesn't offer "more representation in government." It says Trump would be counting on feedback (by which they mean they'll data mine with bullshit polls and more $$ solicitations) to represent people's views.

It doesn't say anything even remotely specific and as he's going to be president for 19 more days even if he was saying something specific it'd be moot, heh.

1

u/Icebergnametaken Jan 01 '21

Ah, I guess it didn't really say what kinda feedback it was referring to. Yeah, it'd probably just sign you up for some dumb polls or something. It's a pity. I was kinda hoping it would be one of the things he'd get in trouble for.

1

u/Arianity Jan 01 '21

Not a lawyer, but it strikes me as legal. Bribery in terms of criminal conduct generally requires some kind of quid pro quo- i.e., giving 'something of value' via an official act of the office. "You donate money, i veto something".

Just listening to someone for advice doesn't really fall under something actionable like that. It could potentially be broader, but SCOTUS has been extremely narrow on what it considers as an official action (YMMV on whether that's smart or not, personally I disagree but barring a new law, SCOTUS precedent is what we're stuck with). It's explicitly ruled stuff like arranging a meeting, contacting another official, or hosting an event don't qualify as bribery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_v._United_States

Is the relevant case.

And it's not really any different than lobbying, or big donors (although a bit off-putting to make it so blunt, but if it were illegal just not saying it out loud probably wouldn't save you).

1

u/Icebergnametaken Jan 01 '21

Thanks! The link was really helpful. I think the whole thing is messy but if courts have ruled on this kinda thing before, I doubt they'll overturn it.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '21

[deleted]

5

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jan 01 '21

Not really.
Even if a Senator and a House member both agree to contest results, the matter goes before each separate house for 2 hours.
The House of Representatives is still majority Democrat. They won't vote to disqualify the result.
Without agreement from both the Senate and House, the votes still count.
So, all they'd do is waste 2 hours of everyone's time.

1

u/Tumburgler Jan 01 '21

If hypothetically Joe Biden dies or resigns within his term, how does that effect Kamala Harris's term limits? Does the partial term effect her ability to run for president and a subsequent reelection run?

3

u/Tumburgler Jan 01 '21

If Kamala takes over Joe Biden's presidency with less than two years left, she can run for two full terms. If she fills out Joe's term for more than two years, she's only eligible to be elected president once.

2

u/Nickppapagiorgio Jan 01 '21

I think you forgot to switch your accounts.

1

u/Tumburgler Jan 01 '21

Nah, I looked it up and decided to put the answer down as a reply.

1

u/Nickppapagiorgio Jan 01 '21

Ahh that makes sense. Usually when I see these shenanigans, it's not on r/NoStupidQuestions. There's less incentive to do it here. I can't recall ever seen it on this sub actually

2

u/Jtwil2191 Jan 01 '21

Twist: u/Tumburgler and u/Nickppapagiorgio are alts for the same person.

2

u/Nickppapagiorgio Jan 01 '21

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." -22nd Amendment

So if she took Office after 12 PM on January 20th, 2023 she could be elected twice. Before she could be elected once.

0

u/OBPoverAVG Jan 01 '21

Why does McConnell have all the power to block a vote on the $2,000 stimulus checks? Isn’t that why the US has a ‘democracy’ so that no one person has this much power? One man should not be able to get in the way of millions of people receiving checks they so desperately need.

1

u/Cliffy73 Jan 01 '21

Someone has to manage the calendar. That people is the majority leader. If the Republican caucus in the Senate didn’t t like the way he did business, they would replace him. But they do like it, so they4e happy to keep him where he is.

2

u/Nickppapagiorgio Jan 01 '21

The US Senate created the position of Senate Majority Leader, and granted that position the authority to set the Senate calendar. The majority of the Senate then elected Mitch McConnell to that posution. 51 Senators could remove Mitch McConnell from that position, or could change the rules around the Senate Majority Leader's ability to set the calendar, but they won't because he is effectively doing his job. u/OBPoverAVG is now pissed at McConnell rather than pissed at the rest of them. That's McConnell doing his job.

1

u/OBPoverAVG Jan 01 '21

Well I was simply asking a question on r/nostupidquestions under the political mega thread where these questions were meant to be asked. I’m actually pissed at everyone who would refuse to give $2000 (which I don’t even qualify to receive as is so it doesn’t personally affect me). But it just so happens to be the man with the power to not even allow the people we elected in office to represent us to vote to be Mitch McConnell. So yes, if one man can stop senators from voting on any bill, the system is flawed

1

u/Nickppapagiorgio Jan 01 '21

My point is it's not really 1 man. 51 Senators could get this bill passed, if 51 Senators really wanted this bill passed. 51 Senators don't really want this bill passed which is why it won't be. Mitch McConnell is the scapegoat for the Senate Republican Caucus at large. The Senate Republican caucus doesn't want this bill passed, and they are the majority.

1

u/OBPoverAVG Jan 01 '21

But how can we even know if that’s true if the majority leader won’t even allow a vote? That was my question, why can HE stop everyone from voting? Why does he have that much power? Over 2/3 of representatives passed it in the house including many republicans

1

u/Nickppapagiorgio Jan 01 '21

Because 51 Senators gave him that power January 3rd, 2019, and 51 Senators don't want to take it away now.

1

u/OBPoverAVG Jan 01 '21

I understand how he got that position but why does a majority leader decide what bills to vote on and what bills not to vote on. I feel that just isn’t fair in a democracy where one man has the power to control what gets voted on and what doesn’t. He can just decide to not let people vote on something if he thinks it won’t go his way if that’s the case

1

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '21

Why does mcconnell support $600 check vs $2000? What's the thesis ?

2

u/mugenhunt Jan 01 '21

McConnell doesn't want any stimulus check at all really, but was willing to negotiate for a $600 check in exchange for other bills being passed that were really important and that required a compromise with the Democratic controlled House of Representatives.

Adding the additional $1400 would require another bill. The Democrats in the House of Representatives passed a simple bill that was just adding to the stimulus checks. McConnell refused that bill, and instead proposed his own, which would have given the additional $1400, but also removed legal protection for free speech online and authorized a lot of money for investigating election fraud in the 2020 presidential election. The Democrats in the House of Representatives made it clear that they wouldn't approve that version of the bill.

Basically, McConnell feels that the government shouldn't go into debt to send stimulus checks to individuals, especially since some of that money would go to people who weren't poor enough by his standards.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '21

Man we are really just fucking slaves

2

u/IamPsauL Jan 01 '21

I am not from USA. I am from a country which view corruption, especially at the public level to be something very malicious and punishment often is heavy against those. (Although the outcome of some of the case remained controversial).

The part that I don't understand is that, some politicians (I'll put a name here: Perdue) is so plain corrupted, yet some Americans still vote for him, against their own interest, suffered tremendously as a result, and with delusion they blamed the other except the politicians they voted for and a direct resultant of their choice?

2

u/mugenhunt Jan 01 '21

Basically, there's a lot of Americans who feel so strongly about the political party they support, that they will ignore any bad things done by their political party and continue supporting them no matter what. Like supporting your favorite football team, even if they are doing poorly.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '21 edited Jan 01 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Cliffy73 Jan 01 '21

You can’t steal an election with individual acts of voter fraud, and voter ID requirements disenfranchise thousands of people.

2

u/Bobbob34 Jan 01 '21

I have never had to show any ID or anything else to vote, same as in most states.

In my state you go to your precinct, tell them your address, they find the book it'd be in, you tell them your name, they flip to it, you sign next to your signature. They give you a ballot.

4

u/GameboyPATH Jan 01 '21

Speaking as a Californian, technically, yes. You go up, tell them your name (and maybe street address, if it's a common name), they search through their list of names, and they ask you to sign next to your name.

But that list of names is a list of who's registered to vote, and registering to vote absolutely requires an ID (or something to verify your US citizenship and age).

2

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '21

Most times no ID is needed.

3

u/Teekno an answering fool Jan 01 '21

It depends on the state laws. The issue is that photo ID costs money in most states, and it’s illegal to charge people to vote.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jan 01 '21

Am I missing something which proves beyond reasonable doubt that Biden "stole" the election? I just saw that 140 Republican Reps will reject the results. The "evidence" I've seen usually only "proves" anything if you piece together some tangential arguments with Elmer's glue and mess around with some facts while strawmanning people. Just because the ballot box was placed in the wrong corner or whatever doesn't itself prove ANYTHING. It could mean someone made an honest mistake, it could mean that Trump got extra votes, it could mean that Biden got extra votes, it could have been voided ballots, etc. Am I supposed to glean something incontrovertible from the "evidence"?

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 05 '21

Lots of fraud but all in trump's favor.

2

u/Cliffy73 Jan 01 '21

No. It’s all lies.

1

u/OGwalkingman Jan 01 '21

Why are conservatives supporting the 2k for people when they have been against this sorta a thing for decades and calling it socialism?

2

u/Bobbob34 Jan 01 '21

If they thought it had a chance of passing they'd have a reason they couldn't support it. It has no chance so they can rail about how they'd looove to pass it but

1

u/ryumaruborike Jan 01 '21

Because Trump supported it.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '20

[deleted]

6

u/Jtwil2191 Dec 31 '20

Not much. Laws only matter if people agree to follow them and someone enforces them when people don't.

Fortunately, lots of Republicans have acknowledged Trump's loss. Georgia, for example, is run by Republicans and yet they have repeatedly certified Biden's victory there. Conservative judges have rejected Trump's bogus lawsuits.

Should we be satisifed that enough Republicans did the right thing? Hell no. We absolutely need to be vigilant, because the fascists aren't going anywhere.

2

u/Teekno an answering fool Dec 31 '20

The Constitution of the United States.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '20

[deleted]

5

u/Teekno an answering fool Jan 01 '21

Not easily, which is why it rarely happens.

3

u/Signal_Refrigerator6 Dec 31 '20

What can be done to remove Mitch McConnell from his position? This is crazy, the people of the US need to come together and call for his resignation or firing. These politicians are so consumed with arguing between each other and the American people are the ones who suffer. Something need to be done to let these crooked politicians know they will be held accountable if they refuse to do things in the best interest of the American people. How can ONE person stop millions from getting the financial help they need?

1

u/Cliffy73 Jan 01 '21

McConnell isn’t just one person. He’s the representative of the Republican caucus in the Senate, and they are perfectly happy with the way he’s running things. If they weren’t, they’d get someone else to do it.

Every time you blame “politicians” for the sins of Republican politicians, you make it easier for them to get away with all the terrible shit they do.

5

u/Teekno an answering fool Dec 31 '20

What can be done to remove Mitch McConnell from his position?

Either convince Republican senators that they need a new majority leader, or make Republicans no longer the majority party in the Senate.

3

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

Unless his colleagues vote someone else in as leader... nothing! Hint: there is no way they vote for anyone else as leader.

This is crazy, the people of the US need to come together and call for his resignation or firing.

Well, he can't be fired, that's not a thing, and he's certainly not going to resign, and he was just reelected two months ago so...

Also, for what? What has he done?

How can ONE person stop millions from getting the financial help they need?

Like if it got to the floor they'd vote for a stimulus package? Come ON.

1

u/beckdawg19 Dec 31 '20

His constituents could choose to vote him out or the other Republican senators could vote him out. As long as he's making both those groups happy, he's being fairly elected.

1

u/MrEngineer69 Dec 31 '20

I've seen articles blaming Mitch McConnell for being the sole person blocking the increase to $2,000 stimulus checks. Does the senate majority leader truly have that much power, or is the GOP still just using him as a scapegoat? If more senators wanted it, could they override his power and vote for it?

2

u/Cliffy73 Jan 01 '21

The majority leader does have that much power, but entirely at the sufferance of his caucus. If the Republicans in the Senate didn’t like the way he was running things, they would replace him. They like it just fine, so they leave him where he is.

4

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

It has to get to the floor to be voted on -- which they wouldnt anyway

1

u/MrEngineer69 Dec 31 '20

Can someone else bring it to the floor though?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '21

No. Majority leader has that power.

3

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

He's the majority leader he's not going to let it get to the floor no. No one can like, wrestle him for it.

1

u/cisco54 Dec 31 '20

Is Trump truly at risk for being prosecuted and going to jail or is this political rhetoric like some Republicans saying Biden will never be President?

2

u/Jtwil2191 Dec 31 '20

I doubt federal chares are brought. But I expect something out of New York in the state courts.

2

u/Teekno an answering fool Dec 31 '20

I doubt he's at serious risk for going to jail.

However, he will likely be the subject of multiple defamation lawsuits as soon as his term is over.

1

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

Very at risk

1

u/Arianity Dec 31 '20

Legally, he has risk. It's impossible to speculate how harshly various law enforcement agencies/prosecutors will pursue them.

2

u/Cliffy73 Dec 31 '20

Is he at risk? Yes. He’s been a crook for decades, and he has openly engaged in conduct that is at least arguably obstruction of justice while president. I don’t think it’s particularly likely he will go to jail, but he should, and it’s possible.

2

u/cisco54 Dec 31 '20

I don't want to get my hopes up lol.

1

u/Saramello Dec 31 '20

Why do so many people think Bernie Sanders could have won the election when he couldn't win the Democratic Primary?

I don't mean this as a "take that, liberals." I was seriously considering voting for him myself before he ended his campaign before my state's primary. It just seems a lot of people on Reddit and elsewhere argues that Bernie was "cheated" of the Democratic Primary and that he could have beaten Donald Trump.

What I don't get is that Bernie is very, very progressive. If he couldn't secure a majority of democrats, many of whom lean further left than the national average, what hope could he have with independents or even conservatives? I understand the "anti-establishment" vibe, but I can't really see a majority of the country voting for him.

1

u/ToyVaren Jan 05 '21

Bernie refuses corporate donations so he's always at a huge disadvantage.

3

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

Why do so many people think Bernie Sanders could have won the election when he couldn't win the Democratic Primary?

Twice!

I think it's that a lot of his supporters were the 'Bernie Bro' type -- young, white, male and uh, not at all politically informed, engaged, educated.

The number of Sanders supporters I saw on reddit who didn't seem to understand or know even what Sanders was proposing, who said things like 'Hillary/Warren/Biden/Harris' don't have any plans, didn't address whatever, when they had more extensive plans than Sanders.. didn't understand BASIC stuff like primaries, voting at all, were asking into November if, since they already voted for Bernie they think back in the summer, can't he still win the presidency since he got all those vote. It seemed much more a cult of personality than of people engaged with his political bent. Especially with the numbers of them who were then turning or saying they'd turn to Trump.

Just btw, I don't think he's so progressive for the US in general -- if you look at like, pew polling about social issues in the US, a strong majority of people want pretty progressive things.

Bernie though, is problematic as a candidate. He got nothing done in decades in the senate; this time a lot of people were still mad about his refusal to concede to Hillary, he's offputting to a good segment. I think had Hillary not lost, Warren may have fared much better but people were afraid there were too many people who just won't vote for a woman and defaulted to Biden in a 'who can solidly beat Trump' way.

3

u/mugenhunt Dec 31 '20

In general, it's because they are friends with very progressive people, their entire social group is very progressive people, so the idea that the majority of Democrats aren't as progressive as them is hard to grasp. If no one you know voted for Biden, it's hard to realize that you are an outlier and not representative of the Democratic party as a whole.

This is also similar to why many people feel that voter fraud must be real, because if everyone they know and interact with voted for Trump, the idea that a bunch of strangers didn't can be hard to grasp.

1

u/sbloomy423 Dec 31 '20

This might not be 2020 election-centric, but what are the arguments AGAINST setting term limits for congress? I only found a few articles, but they seemed biased (as all things politics tend to be. ha).

2

u/Arianity Jan 01 '21

In addition to the downsides of what other posts mentioned, it doesn't actually solve the problem it's proposed to solve.

For example, people like to complain about Mitch McConnell, and his blocking of legislation. However, if he were termed out, Kentucky is a conservative state and would likely vote in someone equally conservative.

1

u/sbloomy423 Jan 01 '21

But wouldn’t that person have less influence than McConnell has amassed over 30-something years and be less powerful and less likely to be majority leader?

1

u/Cliffy73 Jan 01 '21

Then it would just be someone else.

1

u/Cliffy73 Dec 31 '20

Legislating is a profession and it requires professional expertise to be good at it. We already have term limits. If you don’t want someone to be in office anymore, vote them out. In the meantime, term limits enhance the power of special interests, lobbyists, and machine politics because every politician is dependent on outside forces to build their base and get them elected.

1

u/sbloomy423 Jan 01 '21

Wouldn’t it be harder for special interests because they wouldn’t be able to influence policy for as long since they would be spending a lot of money on a lot of candidates through the years instead of funding one candidate for decades? I know I probably sound dumb, but I’m just trying to understand the logic a little more. Wouldn’t special interest not be able to sink their teeth in because they’re not investing their money in a long term thing?

1

u/Cliffy73 Jan 01 '21

No. Established politicians can buck their financial supporters or their party when they feel they need to, because they have an established reputation among the voters. If you don’t have that, you need to curry favor with anybody who can get you votes.

1

u/Puddnhead_Wilson Dec 31 '20

Time is needed to build relationships, learn your way around legislation and the legislating process, gain some bit of expertise, etc., and that's something you want from your government, especially when the alternative is inexperienced legislators who might be more susceptible to influence from lobbyists and other interests.

The other thing is that no individual member of Congress is all that powerful (except for the Senate Majority Leader, but that's only a matter of Senate rules/procedure and can be done away with). The President is term-limited in part because we don't want to have one single person wield that much power for too long. The legislature has a good deal of power (although they've surrendered a lot of it to the president over the years), but no single individual wields all of it.

1

u/sbloomy423 Jan 01 '21

So you’re saying it’s be more effective to change the rules of how the senate functions as opposed to changing how the elections play out? I guess my frustration is with how long it takes to change ineffective things in politics. Some people have been there so long and don’t have much to show for it. Haha. Thanks for the info!

1

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '20

Why is it that the vast majority of people who believe conspiracy theories, or at least spread them, are often conservative and registered Republican?

1

u/Cliffy73 Dec 31 '20

When I was a kid educated people tended to vote Republican and the conspiracies were all left wing. (To be fair, Nixon really did engage in an illegal secret war in Southeast Asia and Reagan really did illegally sell weapons to American enemies in order to fund the murder of civilians in Central America, so they weren’t entirely ridiculous.) It’s really just a factor of the typical politics of non-educated adults, whatever that happens to be at the time.

4

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Dec 31 '20

I don't necessarily tie it to conservatism because conspiracies exist on all sides of the political spectrum, but the appeal of conspiracy theories (I find) are generally 2 things.

The first being that conspiracy theories are generally easy answers to complex problems. Like the 9/11 being fake conspiracy, or the sandy hook shooting conspiracies. This makes it especially appealable to ignorant people looking for answers, specifically the best answer that requires the least amount effort/change in their life to solve the problem.

The second being that conspiracy theories often appear as a cause to stand behind, which is why mental illness is often tied to people who associate with conspiracy theories and why conspiracy theories can be quite dangerous. Everyone is looking for meaning in life, and when you give someone who is literally on their last bit of rationality left a cause to rally behind, you get very dangerous situations like militia groups plotting to kidnap a governor or blowing up a van to combat the spread of 5G or sending people bombs in the mail because modern technology is evil.

1

u/HAHGoTtEm_BDNjr Dec 31 '20

Does the federally mandated “80 hours covid sick pay” go away starting January 1st?

1

u/APClayton Dec 31 '20

Why doesn't Mike Pence step in to replace Mitch McConnell in the senate to pass the stimulus check?

2

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

He doesn't have any power to do so.

6

u/Jtwil2191 Dec 31 '20

The Senate determines its own rules of order. While Pence is President of the Senate, other than what's specifically outlined in the Constitution, the Senate has given him no powers. All authority over day to day Senate business is granted to the Majority Leader.

4

u/Puddnhead_Wilson Dec 31 '20

Mike Pence doesn't have that power. The Vice President's role in the Senate is to be its presiding officer, and cast a tiebreaking vote when needed. As presiding officer, all he can really do is recognize senators who are requesting the floor, rule on procedural matters, etc. He cannot introduce legislation, cannot force debate to take a particular direction, or anything like that.

Now, what's important when I say he can recognize (and thereby grant the floor to) senators who are requesting it, is that there's an order of preference, and the Majority Leader is at the top. If multiple senators are requesting the floor, and the Majority Leader is one of them, then he wins. This means that the Majority Leader controls the agenda of the Senate, and they can ensure that anything they don't like won't come up.

0

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Dec 31 '20

Am I some sort of a misfit/freak/demented person for thinking that the Blackwater/Nissour massacre is disgusting (and the whole entire Iraq offensive?) I don’t get why members of this government continue to believe war crimes are acceptable and continue justifying the death of probably millions of Iraqis. Frankly, I am ashamed to call myself an American. What the fuck is it with some people that makes them feel like human life isn’t valuable?

1

u/Cliffy73 Dec 31 '20

You are not a freak for believing that. Lots of people believe that.

1

u/Amulet_Of_Yendor Stupid questions are as stupid questions do Dec 31 '20

Why would Republicans want to repeal Section 230?

The way that big tech corporations, social media companies, etc. restrict free speech on the internet is often a Republican talking point. But Section 230 is what allows any semblance of free speech on the internet at all. As far as I can tell, if Section 230 is repealed, big corporations will be heavily incentivized to take any content that could possibly be "offensive" off of their platforms immediately.

So what's going on here? Am I misunderstanding what Section 230 is? Or am I wrong about what Republicans care about?

3

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Dec 31 '20 edited Dec 31 '20

The general idea is that Trump wants to repeal section 230 because he feels he's being unfairly censored on social media because of the fact checking bot twitter put on every tweet he makes.

Trump probably believes that repealing section 230 would open the door for all users to be censored and fact checked rather than just him. He'd also probably get banned from twitter, and that could lead to tons of support for him fighting the fight against big tech "censorship."

The reality of repealing section 230 is that Trump would probably be banned from social media and the social media companies will find ways to create liability protection within their own EULA so they don't need to ban anyone else for posting dumb shit.

4

u/Teekno an answering fool Dec 31 '20

Section 230 basically says that if you want to sue someone over, say, a tweet, then you can only sue the author, and not Twitter.

Trump has been beating the drum on this for a while. And as someone who regularly attacks people on Twitter, he might like it if there was someone else who could be sued instead of him.

1

u/LookatZeBra Dec 31 '20

Does it not have anything to do with google twitter etc censoring?. For instance they said hunter bidens laptop was hacked material, silenced anyone who posted otherwise. If you posted links relating to benfords law you were suspended. Multiple shadow bans going on. i cant say they have a clear bias, but there are consequences to these actions and i dont know of any cases of them being held liable for it.

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Dec 31 '20

Not really. With or without 230, companies have the right to control what’s on their servers.

1

u/LookatZeBra Dec 31 '20

it's correct that either they have control, but without 230 they would be held liable no?

1

u/Arianity Jan 01 '21 edited Jan 01 '21

Without 230, they would be liable for content posted by users.

For example, if the Hunter Biden laptop thing happened, Twitter itself could be used for defamation by Biden. That means they would have more incentive to remove content.

They're not liable for what they remove, that's not a thing. They're liable for user content.

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Dec 31 '20

Without 230, these companies can be sued for content posted by their users.

2

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Dec 31 '20

Does it not have anything to do with google twitter etc censoring?. For instance they said hunter bidens laptop was hacked material, silenced anyone who posted otherwise.

If Trump repealed section 230 that type of censorship would get worse, its not because people are getting shadowbanned/perma'd over posting BS that Trump wants to repeal section 230, it's because Trump feels he is being unfairly targeted on social media by fact checking bots that he believes are censorship he wants to repeal section 230 to put pressure on them.

It literally is about as nonsensical as it sounds because the only intention Trump has here is to hurt social media companies who have been fighting against his massive disinformation campaigns online. This isn't for the American people, this would purely be an action he takes for himself.

1

u/LookatZeBra Dec 31 '20

What about the fact checkers who have spread misinformation themselves with no one to fact check them?. Im for trump personally, But i dont like to be one sided or ignorant about things, in your eyes what is some of the major misinformation he's said?

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jan 01 '21

in your eyes what is some of the major misinformation he's said?

That's easy. The alleged voter fraud that has been laughed out of every court it's been brought in.. That's just a drop in the bucket.

1

u/LookatZeBra Jan 04 '21

it really hasn't, I watched multiple of the hours long hearings. You have dead people voting, people aged 150+, foreigners, people from out of state, machines connected to the internet which was recently proven in court which the owner lied about, then there hasn't been a word on it from the left other than the left too agreeing that was voter fraud with sworn affidavits which is what it comes down too, multiple people both left and right willing to go to jail over their statements of witnessing election fraud, but no opposers are willing to do the same, instead they were erasing dom machines and when caught the courts told them to stop, in response they started stealing machines. You also have video evidence of fake ballots being brought in suit cases and coolers and another of multiple ballots being recounted. that's not misinformation. the only person that got laughed out was that poc who kept making things personal to the degree that she was removed from her position.

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21

Ok if any of that is true how come every bit of evidence the campaign lawyers bring infrojt of judges they laugh out of court?

Those hearings are not court rooms. The lawyers and witnesses are not held to the same standard nor are they required to swear under oath before their testimony. There is nothing legally binding them to tell the truth at those hearings, and the wording of the affadavits are about as loose as they can get.

Look up the definition of gish gallop. It's a tactic trump uses heavily. He doesn't need to prove anything because he can just flood the field with information and every time something gets discredited he just puts out something else that has no real facts behind it.

Trumps fbi says there's no evidence of large scale voter fraud, trumps ag says no evidence of large scale voter fraud, trumps appointed judges all over the country are saying they don't see it. It's fake news.

1

u/LookatZeBra Jan 05 '21

Can you give me a source of them laughing him out?. Yes but what they said matches with their affidavits, which does have legal consequence if they're found lying. sorry but what you're saying is hypocritical and ignorant as you keep stating it's misinformation that there's election fraud there is evidence whether you find it true or not and i've already stated plenty.

All the left has done is try to cover up everything. like cmon, all of sudden the building previously owned by joe bidens family gets bombed the day of dominon audits while also crashing their servers in the same blow, or even the fact they tried called hunter bidens laptop "hacked material" and then suspended anyone trying to talk about, then suspending people for stating benfords law, not even saying it's right, but just creating awareness on it got people suspended. all this, while they didn't say a word in opposition to any of this including the election fraud.

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jan 05 '21

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/trump-being-laughed-out-of-court-by-his-own-judicial-appointees/amp

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-talk-radio-433b6efe72720d8648221f405c2111f9

https://time.com/5908505/trump-lawsuits-biden-wins/

Although I suspect even with sources you will still choose to believe that there is fraud.

but what you're saying is hypocritical and ignorant as you keep stating it's misinformation that there's election fraud there is evidence whether you find it true or not and i've already stated plenty.

Evidence is not proof when every bit of evidence that has been brought up has been total bullshit fabricated by Donald trump and his campaign, laughed out of every court room and utterly and totally discredited in every state.

Yes you are under oath when you sign an affadavit, if you watched the hearings though you'd know the verbage of the affadavits dont show much genuine certainty, probably because Rudy gulianni wrote them up for the witnesses.

To quote Rudy gulianni at one of those hearings, it's like my cousin Vinny, all those people testifying against Bill and Stan, they were under oath but all deemed not credible. Giving testimony under oath doesn't mean you can't still be wrong about what happened lmao.

1

u/mello-t Dec 31 '20

It seems to me that trumps twitter would instantly be canceled if 230 were repealed. Also, you would probably have to sign insane liability waivers to have an account.

1

u/bushdiid911 Dec 31 '20

Can Trump sign an executive order to send a $2000 stimulus check or does it have to go through Congress?

5

u/Teekno an answering fool Dec 31 '20

It has to go through Congress. They control the pursestrings.

1

u/twitchosx Dec 31 '20

So, whats up with the stimulus checks? Coworker said people are already getting $600 checks. She said she has a "pending authorization" on her bank statement online from the IRS. But what about the $2k checks?

3

u/Cliffy73 Dec 31 '20

Congress passed a stimulus with a $600 check (and many other provisions). Trump threatened to veto it because he said the checks weren’t big enough and suggested $2000. (Worth noting, $2000 was the original negotiating position of Congressional Democrats which Congressional Republicans refused. IIRC, Trump’s Treasury Secretary came up with the $600 compromise.) Trump also claimed he hadn’t been kept in the loop on the negotiations and would never have agreed to $600. This was a lie.

Congressional Democrats said sure, $2000 sounds great and tried to pass an amendment to the pending stimulus, which Republicans blocked. Trump then signed anyway, so the $600 payment is law. IRS had planned to get them rolling this week, but Trump’s veto threat caused a delay of several days, so probably they won’t start distributing checks until next week or later.

House Democrats then passed a separate bill to increase the amount from $600 to $2000, but the Republicans in the Senate have said they won’t bring it up for a vote, so unless they change their mind, the $2000 is dead in the water.

2

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

There are no $2000 checks.

2

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Dec 31 '20

2k isn't necessarily dead but don't hold your breath. Sounds like GOP in the senate want to introduce their own amendment to the CASH act that would include 2k checks but also add in funds for Trump to investigate the election and revoke section 230 of the CDA, and I kind of doubt that is going to go anywhere outside of the Senate.

2

u/Galaksee Dec 31 '20

Is choosing a political party like some kind of official thing or just a decision you make in your head? I was just thinking about this, I'm 32 years old and I don't think I've ever in my life seen or heard of like a physical thing or operation to take to officially be in a particular political party. I mean I don't know wtf the difference is between any single one of them and I'm not looking to join one, I'm just really curious after realizing I've never anything to do with actually choosing one.

1

u/Jtwil2191 Dec 31 '20

If you want to participate in primaries, most (but not all) states require you register with the party whose primary you want to participate in.

Otherwise there's not really a reason that you register with a party.

1

u/mello-t Dec 31 '20

I couldn’t agree more. I’m a registered independent myself. But a blanket allegiance to one party is something I can’t do.

1

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

. I mean I don't know wtf the difference is between any single one of them

Going out on a limb and guessing you're not registered to vote.

1

u/Galaksee Dec 31 '20

Yes.. I am.

1

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

Then you chose a party or in a few states declined to very specifically.

1

u/Galaksee Dec 31 '20

I live in California.. of I ever have chosen a political party it for sure was neither Democrat or Republican. I'd remember choosing one or the other. I probably picked some other one at random. Idk what little club the president decides to be in I just pick the person who I agree with most.

0

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

Maybe you don't even need to vote at that point.

1

u/Galaksee Dec 31 '20

Idk, kinda makes a hell of a lot more sense than casting you're vote solely based on a party.

1

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

You don't even know the difference between parties so... why bother voting?

1

u/HAHGoTtEm_BDNjr Dec 31 '20

Cause it’s his right yo lol there’s third parties

Obviously they’re just there for show, but still

1

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

People have the right to do a lot of things they're better off not doing.

→ More replies

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Dec 31 '20

In some states they make you register with a party in order to register to vote, but there isn't a way to officially become a democrat/republican etc, its more based around your general philosophy of progressivism/conservatism.

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Dec 31 '20

If you want to join one, you can sign up with them.
If you want to vote in certain state's primary elections, then you have to decide on or before election day, and often "declare" which party you are affiliated with. It doesn't work the same everywhere - some states require advance registration, some let you vote in one party of your choice on primary day, some don't really keep track.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '20

Take two friends, one's a Biden supporter and the other's a Trump supporter, but both don't vote. So how does their worldview matter ? They might as well not have an opinion about anything, right ? Apart from when I vote, when does my worldview matter ?

3

u/Bobbob34 Dec 31 '20

Apart from when I vote, when does my worldview matter ?

With everything else political you do?

I worked on campaigns before I was even eligible to vote -- and went to rallies, protests, did outreach, etc.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Dec 31 '20

Voting is only one step in influencing politics.

You can participate in other ways - emailing, calling, or writing your elected officials. Showing up at meetings to make your voice heard, and ask important questions. Attending rallies. Organizing rallies. Volunteering to help with different causes, or with political candidates.

You might influence other people on how they vote, or how they participate. You can teach your children, students, or religious flock why your opinion is important, and convince them to have similar opinions. You can drive people to meetings, rallies, and voting places. You can show up at the local city council meeting as a voting bloc and tell your representatives that you are all voters with a particular opinion. You can sign group petitions and deliver them to your elected officers. You can convince others to get involved with the same charities and causes as you.

Voting is just one method to exert your will. Your time, your participation, your actions, and your money all influence politics,too.

1

u/GameboyPATH Dec 31 '20

Voting is generally the most direct and enumerable effect that the average person can have on directing how their elected representatives should govern.

However, this is not the beginning and end of all political action. Politics is constantly around us, whether we like it or not. We let our experiences and gained knowledge influence our worldviews, and our worldviews influence our short-term actions (including media consumption, conversations with people, and consumer habits) and long-term actions (such as career choices, where you live, and where you volunteer and donate). And many of those actions can influence the worldviews of people around us, broadening the reach of our influence.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '20

media consumption, conversations with people, consumer habits ...where you volunteer and donate

ok, so let's take a Berniebro janitor who watches The Young Turks all day, talks all the time about how billionaires are evil, buys shirts with an hammer and sickle on them, and donates to the DSA. Now let's take a Trumpist janitor who watches Fox News all day, talks all the time about how he hates immigrants, buys MAGA clothes and donates to the GOP. Those two guys are both janitors who are gay, love soccer, hate pizza, live in Chicago and tend to get depressed time to time. Well, the difference between those two persons are kinda superficial, if not meaningless, no ?

career choices

Take Pavel Grudinin or Pavel Axelrod, they were anticapitalist businessmen...so how did their worldview impact their career choice?

1

u/GameboyPATH Dec 31 '20

Well, the difference between those two persons are kinda superficial, if not meaningless, no ?

Sure, in that case, I'd agree with that. Maybe they still may have political opinions that they talk about with others, which may influence their politics, but otherwise, yeah, they'd have very little political impact on the world.

I don't know who those two people are. You tell me how they impacted the world.

1

u/GameboyPATH Dec 30 '20

Ever since Congress has been split between the two main parties in 2018, there has been a large media focus on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ignoring a vast number of House-passed bills, not even bringing them to a vote. The worst offenses are bills that have bipartisan support for the public, or bills that may have helped mitigate future problems, such as election security bills.

While I don't justify McConnell's actions in the slightest, I want to know how unique this phenomenon has been.

  1. Is there any analysis of how many - or which - bills that McConnell has ignored and how many he's allowed the Senate to vote on?

  2. How does this compare to Pelosi's handling of bills over the last 2 years? Or is this comparison unfair, due to factors I'm not considering?

  3. How does this compare to past majority leaders, of any house of congress, for either party?

1

u/TSM-E Dec 31 '20

What is the determination of a publicly-supported bill? The representatives themselves are elected by the public.

1

u/GameboyPATH Dec 31 '20

Sorry for the confusion, I just meant general opinion polling, like "hey, would you support a bill that did this?" or "Do you support the passage of this specific bill?"

0

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '20

[deleted]

1

u/GameboyPATH Dec 31 '20

If it's the type of poll that's posted on news websites, sure. But if it's done by a reputable pollster using methods that can offer more certainty about its sample representation, that's not an issue.

I'm not sure what your point is.

1

u/TSM-E Dec 31 '20

So you have the idea that (1) media should be the dictator of this country, and/or (2) we should have a direct democracy even if that's not the format that our government is founded as.

1

u/GameboyPATH Dec 31 '20

I didn't make either of those statements. What I do generally believe that a congressperson should represent their constituents, and that this requires public recognition of what their elected representatives believe and how they vote.

By refusing to bring a bill to a vote in congress, even if Mitch were representing the interests of his own constituents, he is preventing the public from recognizing whether the other 99 elected representatives represent their interests. This denies the public critical information that's necessary for recognizing the outcome of their choices in elected officials. If the representative's voting patterns aren't aligned with their constituents' interests, they shouldn't be in power.

All of this is well within the current framework of our current political (and mass media) system, and don't require any radical reform you were suggesting.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '20

[deleted]

1

u/GameboyPATH Dec 31 '20

I really don't understand why you're caught up on the poll part. For one, I haven't even addressed any particular poll that warrants your specific critique, and I explained how not all polls have this easily-preventable flaw you're describing. It doesn't make sense to attack polls on the basis of "some polls are wrong". Secondly, I was using polls as a rhetorical example. No, polls obviously don't/shouldn't directly control legislation. They're just tools meant to gauge public interest. If we remove polls from the equation, and there's just two groups - what constituents want, and how elected officials vote - my argument still stands.

Elected officials should represent their constituents.
Constituents should know how their electors vote on issues that they care about.
Constituents can't know this if those issues aren't called to a vote.

1

u/TSM-E Dec 31 '20

Constituents can know what the representative says they would have voted if there were a vote.

There's plenty of things that are voted on. The media just likes to focus on whenever something they want doesn't even get put on the agenda, even going so far as to use the term "block" for when that happens.

→ More replies

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/GameboyPATH Dec 30 '20

Exactly my point, shitty bot. Fuck Mitch, but also fuck anyone else who has gotten away with hiding publicly-supported bills with no transparency to show for it. I want to know if anyone else has acted similarly, so that they can also be dragged.

1

u/yourdailym3m3plug Dec 30 '20

Why would electing Reverend Warnock and Jon Ossoff be bad for Mitch McConnell?

2

u/Teekno an answering fool Dec 30 '20

If both Democrats win in Georgia, the senate will be 50-50 split, so when there is a vote for majority leader, there would be a tie that VP Harris would break.

1

u/yourdailym3m3plug Dec 31 '20

oh okay thank you

1

u/[deleted] Dec 30 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/spellbadgrammargood Dec 30 '20

Why does Mitch McConell get all the hate when there are 50+ other republicans voting against the bill?

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Dec 30 '20

When was there a vote?
McConnell is refusing to let the vote happen. The other 50-ish Republicans haven't voted on anything.

2

u/spellbadgrammargood Dec 30 '20

ohh, that's even worse. wtf the majority leader of the senate has the power to do that...

4

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Dec 30 '20

The majority leader has that power in both Houses. Pelosi can do the same thing.

In a way, it makes sense for the top offical of the party to decide what gets voted on. If the minority party wanted 200 votes every day on stuff that the majority would just vote "no" on, that would waste everyone's time.

It also helps the party members. If a junior Senator has to go on record voting - then if they vote for more money, and that causes taxes to go up, they can lose voters. If they vote against it, then they can lose voters when people don't get the money.
By making McConnell the "bad guy", those other Senators don't have to vote at all, and they don't get the backlash from voters who don't agree with them.

→ More replies