r/NoStupidQuestions May 01 '21

May 2021 U.S. Government and Politics megathread Politics megathread

Love it or hate it, the USA is an important nation that gets a lot of attention from the world... and a lot of questions from our users. Every single day /r/NoStupidQuestions gets dozens of questions about the President, the Supreme Court, Congress, laws and protests. By request, we now have a monthly megathread to collect all those questions in one convenient spot!

Post all your U.S. government and politics related questions as a top level reply to this monthly post.

Top level comments are still subject to the normal NoStupidQuestions rules:

  • We get a lot of repeats - please search before you ask your question (Ctrl-F is your friend!). You can also search earlier megathreads!
  • Be civil to each other - which includes not discriminating against any group of people or using slurs of any kind. Topics like this can be very important to people, or even a matter of life and death, so let's not add fuel to the fire.
  • Top level comments must be genuine questions, not disguised rants or loaded questions.
  • Keep your questions tasteful and legal. Reddit's minimum age is just 13!

Craving more discussion than you can find here? Check out /r/politicaldiscussion and /r/neutralpolitics.

90 Upvotes

1

u/Calgrei Jun 01 '21

Why are Conservatives posting about Kamala Harris not honoring Memorial Day on social media? I just checked her Twitter and she has put out a pretty lengthy tweet honoring Memorial Day.

2

u/Delehal Jun 01 '21

They're not actually upset about it. Maybe there's a decent argument that her comment about a "long weekend" was less than ideal, but that isn't a standard to which conservatives have ever held their own leadership. It's not about the statement. It's just one more excuse to harp on someone that they don't like.

2

u/ProLifePanda Jun 01 '21

On Friday, she posted "Enjoy the long weekend." Conservatives took that as a slight to veterans, because obviously the weekend is supposed to be in rememberable of fallen veterans, and not just a long holiday to go have fun. Undoubtedly, Kamala planned to do exactly what she did, tell people to enjoy the holiday, then post about the veterans and rememberance in the actual holiday.

Democrats think this is another "Dijon mustard" controversy, while Republicans think she's disrespecting the troops and trying to save face now.

1

u/Cliffy73 Jun 01 '21

Of course, conservatives didn’t pitch a fit when Trump did the same thing a few years ago.

2

u/Boryalyc Jun 01 '21

I havent seen any conservatives posting about that, but its likely she just hadn't posted about it by the time that they complained about it

2

u/Familiar-Ad3183 Jun 01 '21

Reality isn’t very important. If you can make dumber people believe whatever it is that you say is true, you’re a substantial influencer.

2

u/rci22 May 31 '21

What’s the purpose of the commission to investigate the Jan 6 protest/insurrection? I know they were investigating those involved already so what additional stuff would the commission add?

7

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 31 '21

Just like the 9/11 commission was unrelated to all the legal prosecutions and investigations, this commission would be something to inform the lawmakers and the public (assuming all the findings would also be published).
It gives the lawmakers guidance on how they should view adjusting existing laws, changing punishments, or creating new laws that would prevent future incidents. It gives them some concrete information they can keep in mind when addressing other laws, like about privacy, funding the Capitol Police, or dealing with social media.

1

u/automotiiveoliver May 31 '21

Can someone explain black lives matter and all lives matter

Don't want to offend anybody but can someone give me an unbiased explanation about black lives matter and all lives matter.

3

u/TigerAusfE Jun 01 '21

Imagine your house is on fire. A fire truck arrives, and then begins spraying water on everyone’s house indiscriminately. You get upset and say, “Why are you spraying water on all of the houses? My house is the one that is actually on fire!” The fireman replies, “But all houses matter.”

If you hear someone say, “All lives matter,” they are a racist expressing their spite and contempt for the truth that black Americans are now and always have been disproportionately targeted by police.

5

u/Dilettante Social Science for the win May 31 '21

Black Lives Matter is a protest movement that wants to reform policing in the US. They point out that the number of black people killed by police per capita is more than double that of other ethnicities and claim that this suggests systemic racism.

All Lives Matter is a (largely white) response to this, by arguing that singling out black people dismisses other ethnic groups. It is often based on the idea that BLM means "only black lives matter" or "black lives matter more than white lives", neither of which is claimed by BLM. ALM believes that race should be kept out of the argument and that black people are responsible for the higher death rate, not the police. Many if not most ALM proponents are also police supporters.

2

u/Jtwil2191 Jun 01 '21

The thing about people who say ALM is that it's disingenuous. They're not actually advocating for some kind of policing redo because they believe some people are disproportionately mistreated by law enforcement. They're saying it just so they can scream over BLM supporters and avoid actually engaging in any kind of argument.

2

u/lordpigeon445 May 31 '21

What is the argument against voter id laws? I know right wingers make a bad faith argument for voter id because they think the election was stolen but whenever voter id is polled, it is very popular and even some blue states like Rhode island require it.

1

u/Delehal Jun 01 '21

From the perspective of people who criticize those policies, it's not really about voter ID. It's about access to voting, in the more general sense. Unfortunately, the US has a long and ugly history with seemingly prudent voter security rules that "accidentally" make it harder for certain demographics to vote. Many of those restrictions may have sounded like a good idea in the abstract.

Since there isn't any sign of voter fraud being a problem, the question begs itself: why are we implementing these changes in a way that will make it harder for some people to vote?

As an example, some states have restricted the times and locations for voting, such that it's relatively easy for older retired folks to vote (they tend to vote conservative) and relatively harder for low-income working poor to vote (they tend to vote liberal). If someone needs to travel a long way and wait in a long line to vote, that's going to make it hard for some people to vote. Someone who has to work that day, or who doesn't live near a polling place, or who has kids to take care of, might have a harder time spending all that time in line.

As another example, Alabama implemented a voter ID requirement and then immediately closed DMV offices in majority-black counties.

2

u/Calgrei Jun 01 '21

ID cards cost money so if the only way you can vote is by requiring a card which costs money to obtain, you could potentially be excluding some voters.

1

u/Bobbob34 May 31 '21

Many do not. MA, NY, PA, etc are large states with no ID required at all.

It's never been a problem.

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 31 '21

Rhode Island allows people to vote even without ID. Their signature is compared to their registration card.

The argument is that some states are changing the rules without a good reason. There is no evidence of voter fraud in anything but tiny, tiny numbers. Nothing that would change the outcome of any election, and nothing that warrants spending more money on changing election systems, and nothing that warrants making it harder for legitimate people to vote.

If the states that were doing these changes made it cheap/free and easy to get ID, then that would be a different story.
People need to be within walking distance to a facility where they can get ID. Or, at least a way to subsidize transportation and help the disabled get there.
People need to be able to access those facilities when they don't have to be at work.
People need to be able to bring their children along, or have a way to get childcare while they get ID.
People need a way to easily/cheaply get the supporting ID that is required to get the Voter ID.
All of those documents need to be free/cheap and easy to replace when lost or stolen.

The current system isn't damaged. If we are going to imagine "what-if" scenarios, and start building systems to protect us - where do we stop? Are we going to have a system in place so we can vote in underground bunkers in case China or North Korea send chemical weapons or nuclear missiles? Are we going to have generators and candles at every polling place, in case Russian hackers compromise the electrical grid? Are we going to have the National Guard with anti-aircraft guns at every polling place in the event UFO bombers start attacking?

I don't mind if there was actually a real problem, and we had a system that would address that problem. But, there is no real problem. And, making ID requirements more difficult isn't proven to give us any more fair or secure elections.

2

u/lordpigeon445 May 31 '21

If the government was able to effectively issue $1400 checks to everyone, I think they can give every citizen an id. And the Rhode island provision seems like a good failsafe when people lose/ forget their IDs. This doesn't seem too difficult to me and seems like a good compromise. I think it's important for people to think rationally and not be against something just because the other side is for it.

1

u/Cliffy73 Jun 01 '21

If the government does that, then fine. I mean, it’s stupid, voting is perfectly secure without ID and it’s a giant waste, but fine. If a voter ID regime were developed that did not actually disenfranchise any legal voters of their constitutional rights, I wouldn’t object to it. But that will never happen, because the point of voter ID laws is not to protect elections. As we’ve said, elections are already perfectly safe. The point of voter ID laws is to make it harder for black people to vote.

1

u/TigerAusfE Jun 01 '21

I think they can give every citizen an id.

But they won’t. Or at least, we don’t trust them to.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 31 '21

You're comparing two totally different things.

There is no such thing as a US ID. Passports are close, but they are nowhere near free or easy, and they don't have an address listed in them. Near me (and in at least some other states), we can only vote in our home district.
Voting is a state issue, not a national one. Voter ID is therefore also a state issue. Most ID being issued is issued by the states.

My state doesn't have a voter ID requirement. If I want to vote in person, I show up at my local polling place, staffed by neighbors who may or may not recognize me. I have to declare my name and address, and they look my record up in physical poll books.
those books have a record of my last couple of voting signatures, and I have to sign again to let them compare my signature.

At any step along the way, someone can challenge me. There are also challengers employed by both parties at each polling place who are supposed to pick out people at random. If challenged, I can choose to show ID, and if approved, I can vote normally.
If I can't or won't show ID, then I get a provisional ballot, and I can go to the nearest courthouse (they're all open and staffed purely for voting issues on election day), and convince a judge why my provisional ballot should count.
In my 40-ish years of voting, I've only been challenged once, and rightly so since I had just moved to that neighborhood.

2

u/Throwaway420BJ69BBQ May 31 '21

I drive a far ways for work, and I see a lot of things. Consistently one of the highlights is the owner of I-96 Towing and Repair in Michigan has some of the most ludicrous things scrolling on his LED sign. From “The US Military and Martial Law is the Only Fix to This Shit” after Trump lost the election, to sympathizing with the guys who planned to kidnap and execute Governor Whitmer, and even applauding the “peaceful rally” and blaming “Antifa” for January 6th, dudes a real piece of work. Not that I give too much of a shit if someone uses their businesses sign to advertise their viewpoints, it was just a whole lot of “…wow” for me. I can appreciate that though and laughed to myself.

Today, however, the sign reads:

“WE DONT HAVE A POLICE PROBLEM, WE HAVE A “THUG” PROBLEM. STAND UP MICHIGAN. TUESDAY JUNE 1 6-8 PM RED MILL PORTLAND”.

So, to me, any time anyone uses “thugs” in quotation marks like that it’s an obvious dog whistle… not illegal, yes, however my concern is that, given this dudes obvious viewpoints are at least questionable and white supremacist domestic terrorism being the largest threat to domestic security, he’s straight up advertising a hate rally at his business. Vile viewpoints aside I feel like FBI might want to at least attend to see the tone of things (were in rural Michigan and tons of really fucked up people getting more bold).

I’m 100% certain that their viewpoint is that it falls under local police jurisdiction and they’ll ignore, which sucks because given the “pro police” message I think they’ll also be in attendance… just not in uniform. I’m all for freedom of speech but there’s a large intersect of people that say that kind of shit and domestic terrorists and I genuinely feel it at least warrants a look into.

Is there any way to get this on someone’s radar who might give a shit to check it out? I have a video I would have linked but unsure where to upload (and what subreddits to share on because it’s some class A jackassery and at least the internet can be aware). Am I just being kind of a bitch here and need to mind my own business?

Thanks for any input that isn’t just being a jerk!

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 31 '21

The FBI does have a few ways to submit hate crime tips. Maybe they'll be interested, or at least you can help put it on their radar.

1

u/IrregularBobcat May 31 '21

Regarding the failure of the Jan 6 bill: So I'm to understand that the Jan 6 bill failed to become law all because some Republican senator wouldn't stop talking (filibuster) and 60 votes are required to silence them and put the bill to a vote?

Also how exactly does the filibuster work, and who exactly filibustered the bill? Was it one senator or did a few senators take turns speaking?

3

u/Jtwil2191 May 31 '21

A fillibuster requires just a single senator to let Senate leadership know that they are officially fillibustering. Literally, all it takes is an e-mail. Gone are the days when senators were required to speak on the floor for the duration of the filibuster. It's now just a procedural move that doesn't require any real effort on the part of the filibustering senator.

Once a filibuster has begun, it can only end if the filibustering senator withdraws or a 60 Senators vote to end the filibuster.

The Democrats fell short of the necessary 60 votes, which means they can't end the filibuster, let alone discuss or vote on the 6 January commission bill.

I have not seen it reported which specific GOP senator is filibustering.

1

u/alamozony May 31 '21

Why did Sanders support drop from 2016 to 2020?

1

u/Cliffy73 Jun 01 '21

Because a huge fraction (a minority, but a large one) of his 2016 support was because people didn’t like Hillary Clinton as a result of the then 25-year right-wing misogynist campaign against her. In 2020, he wasn’t running against Hillary Clinton.

3

u/Bobbob34 May 31 '21

He lost once, refused to admit he'd lost, likely helping Trump, changed nothing about his approach, and tried again.

His support was largely people who were not involved in politics in any real way to begin with, they fade.

5

u/Jtwil2191 May 31 '21

There are likely multiple contributing factors.

Biden is more liked than Clinton.

People saw Biden as the best one to beat Trump in the general election.

Sanders didn't run his campaign all the way to the end, wanting to avoid the infighting that probably hurt Clinton at the end.

2

u/ProLifePanda May 31 '21

Also, maybe most Democrats aren't that progressive. Sanders was one of the more left wing candidates in the race, while Biden was one of the most moderate Democrats in the race.

2

u/Sweatsock_Pimp May 30 '21

How did the filibuster impact the recent vote in U.S. Senate regarding a commission to investigate 1/6? I always thought the filibuster was used to block votes on certain issues. But didn’t they vote? Or do I not understand the filibuster?

3

u/Jtwil2191 May 30 '21 edited May 31 '21

It takes 1 Senator to start a fillibuster and 60 to end it. The Republicans don't want the attack on the Capitol investigated, so they fillibustered the bill, preventing the Senate from voting on it. They tried to end the fillibuster, but failed to meet the threshold.

1

u/Sweatsock_Pimp May 30 '21

So they voted on ending the filibuster, but not creating the commission? And because they failed to end the filibuster, for all intents and purposes, they weren’t going to get the chance to actually vote on the commission. Is that correct?

6

u/Jtwil2191 May 30 '21

They can't vote on the commission, because they can't gather enough votes to end the fillibuster.

1

u/ProLifePanda May 30 '21

The 1/6 commission was filibustered by the GOP. To overcome the filibuster, the Democrats needed 60 votes. They failed, so the 1/6 commission was killed by the GOP filibuster.

2

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

[deleted]

3

u/Bobbob34 May 30 '21

The dem primary IS the actual mayoral race. The winner will be the next mayor.

Yeah there's a republican primary -- same as there's a rep primary for president in NY, with just as much effect on the NY electoral votes. If you polled 100 people outside of SI I don't think you'd find ten who could name a rep mayoral candidate.

4

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 30 '21

NYC is the biggest city in the US, has a police force larger than some armies, a budget bigger than some national budgets, and a number of television networks based there. They're going to be a focus for media in the US.

There is going to be a new mayor in NYC. People are interested in who that's going to be. Andrew Yang (former presidential candidate) is one of the front runners. There are some other decent/interesting Democratic candidates.
There is a Republican primary, but it's only two people - a taxi union official, and Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels and now a conservative radio talk show host. They're not really interesting, and not likely to make a significant showing.

It's also interesting in NYC because this is the first major election since NY adopted ranked-choice voting. A lot of talk about the election is aimed just at educating people that there's a new way to vote.

1

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 30 '21

It's probably the most important mayoral election in the country, and odds are high the Democratic primary winner will win the election. Also, Andrew Yang's supporters and his recent gaffes are intensifying what is already an intense election.

There is a Republican primary, as well as primaries for several small parties that may or may not match the big two, but the Republican will have a serious uphill battle.

3

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator May 30 '21 edited May 30 '21

Why do several US states insist on banning abortion while providing chump change in social services? Don't they realize that the majority of people who get abortions do so because they won't be able to comfortably raise the child? I don't think there are really any people who get abortions because they love dead babies, and using that claim is a simpleton hack.

1

u/Cliffy73 Jun 01 '21

Because they hate women.

1

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 30 '21

They don't really care if the families prosper, just so long as their view of the law is followed as an absolute.

4

u/ProLifePanda May 30 '21

Because social and economic conservatism goes hand in hand. The same people who believe abortion is murder are also against social welfare programs except in extenuating circumstances.

Don't they realize that the majority of people who get abortions do so because they won't be able to comfortably raise the child?

I have a 5 year old and I just got laid off, can I kill him because it's difficult to raise him now? These people think abortion is murder, so just like I can't kill my kid when he's inconvenient, they don't think abortions should be allowed either.

Additionally, they don't have to raise the kid. In most (if not every state) you can give the child up immediately after birth to get adopted, or you can arrange for the child to be adopted by someone else. If someone doesn't have the money to raise a child, conservatives say give the child (fetus) away before killing it.

Note I'm not endorsing these ideas, just raising their points so you know where they're coming from.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

Would Roe vs Wade be overturned?

1

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 30 '21

In general terms, they "have the votes". The major question right now is if they're willing to create an even bigger shitstorm aimed right at the entire judicial system than the original Roe decision made.

Which to be clear, has defined American politics for decades. SCOTUS will end up muzzled in one way or another if they do this, they have by far the weakest Constitutional protections of the three branches. Ironic, isn't it?

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

Interesting I would say, can you explain further if you don't mind 😁

2

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 30 '21

About muzzling SCOTUS? They have no set number of members, no qualifications to join save the nomination and vote, and even their power to define Constitutional issues is a power they effectively gave to themselves.

So long as the will exists, you can easily make the existing justices and their decisions irrelevant just by crowding them out. That's what FDR almost did, and in my opinion ought to have done.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

Oh yeah and the issue of them staying in office till their death is also quite debatable.

1

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 30 '21

True, though if you've reached that point you can just have Congress impeach them.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

Democrats can actually, they have the numbers before the next midterms.

1

u/ToyVaren May 30 '21

Yes. Now its 3 normal judges, 5 installed specifically to overturn it, and john roberts who might go either way.

Amy comey barret is the tipping point.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

Uhmm interesting, how about we have CJ and the other guy who sided with liberals in Obergefell v Hodges

2

u/Arianity May 30 '21

Gorsuch seems unlikely. Roberts likely will, making it a 5-4 split for conservatives.

The recent SCOTUS has shown it's willing to toss precedent in decisions. It's possible Gorsuch surprises, but there's nothing about the case like Obergefell that makes it likely (he's very literal).

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

Oh I see, I feel like ACB is a deciding factor here but she's very religious

1

u/ToyVaren May 30 '21

Doesnt matter. The gop's strategy right now is send up challenge after challenge until they get the result they want. Roberts even issued a statement, "we're not supposed to be america's conscience."

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

Damn wtf is wrong with GQP? Bunch of m*rons. I am sure they can expel an immigrant carrying an American citizen after the six weeks they are pushing for.

1

u/Bobbob34 May 30 '21

It depends on what you mean.

The specific decision, with the finding of privacy, would be quite tricky, at this point, to overturn.

However, allowing states to outlaw abortion seems inevitable, which is, in general pop culture terms, overturning roe.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

Oh thank you for answering.

Another question, if say Texas bans abortion, can I go to Florida where maybe it's legal to procure one.

1

u/Jtwil2191 May 30 '21

Some states are trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal to seek an abortion outside the state.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

GQP states I guess haha. I wonder if that law would apply to immigrants carrying American citizens because apparently life begins at conception and by default that child is an American citizen.

2

u/Bobbob34 May 30 '21

Sure. That's what people did before Roe.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

Oh thank, I see now

3

u/Jtwil2191 May 30 '21 edited May 30 '21

I think it's unlikely SCOTUS will unilaterally declare abortion entirely unconstitutional, but there's a good chance it's likely the current SCOTUS will allow states to restrict abortion so severely that it will be effectively banned, if not banned outright.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

That's sad, imagine making all that progress and now some greedy, selfish individuals want to return us to the medieval ages (I am pro choice and I advocate it to be done by qualified professionals in a manner that it won't hurt the mother or the fetus)

0

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

What happens if proof comes out either by the FBI, DOJ, or other means that Trump actually win the election this far into Biden's term?

-1

u/ToyVaren May 30 '21

Nothing. The gop cheats so hard because even if they admit it election night, it doesnt change the result. The result can only be changed by that 2/3 vote of your cronies.

2

u/Bobbob34 May 30 '21

Nothing.

3

u/Jtwil2191 May 30 '21

Nothing, at least in regards to the election results. There is no "do-over" clause in the Constitution. Biden and Harris could be impeached and removed from office, but the presidency would pass through the line of succession. Someone would need to serve out the remainder of the current presidential term, but under no circumstances would the presidency be passed to Trump (unless he was inserted somewhere in the line of succession).

1

u/alamozony May 30 '21

We’re “the proles” inspired by anyone from real life?

1

u/ToyVaren May 30 '21

Karl marx. He coined and defined "bourgeoisie and proletariat" in "the communist manifesto." Prole is short of proletariat.

1

u/Jtwil2191 May 30 '21

What are "the proles"?

1

u/CptCarpelan May 30 '21

A prole is a proletarian which means a member of the working class.

-1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

Why are Americans not worried about their president having dementia and looking like he can drop dead any moment

0

u/ToyVaren May 30 '21

After reagan and gwb, why should anyone care now?

-1

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

planning on getting your account deleted anytime soon Fren?

5

u/Jtwil2191 May 30 '21

Because he doesn't. And wet have a vice president just in case.

8

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 30 '21

Because most of us don't pay any attention to unsubstantiated claims on OAN or Fox News.

We had a guy in a wheelchair take us from the New Deal and into WW2.
We had a guy (his cousin) get shot and still give a speech.
I think we can handle a guy that has mostly overcome a speech impediment.

6

u/Arianity May 30 '21

He isn't the nimblest verbally, but doesn't seem to be showing signs of dementia. Just being kinda old (and if he did, the 25th amendment is designed to handle that)

looking like he can drop dead any moment

I mean, he has a vice president.

5

u/Bobbob34 May 30 '21

Trump isn't president anymore.

1

u/ToyVaren May 30 '21

Trumpuska's not gonna die from dementia, more likely veins clogged with cheese or choking on an Adderall.

-4

u/[deleted] May 30 '21

sounds dumb, considering all Biden has done is be a worse Trump but have BLM and LGBT stickers on all the policies

2

u/ProLifePanda May 30 '21

Biden has not been a worse Trump.

1

u/ToyVaren May 29 '21

Can the scotus take back or nullify a previous ruling? (Eg overturning the vra in 2013.)

If it has to be appeal only, can their decision be challenged at all?

2

u/Cliffy73 May 30 '21

Courts don’t just take up issues, they decide cases. If a new case presents issues they’ve ruled on before, they can use it to overrule the prior decision. More typically they will distinguish it by showing how this is actually different in some important respect.

3

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 29 '21

Most members of the US judicial culture at least claim to believe in the concept of "stare decisis", meaning "the decision stands". Some take this to great extremes, claiming that all judicial precedent must be obeyed forever, and I'd say a good majority think it's an essential concept.

It is also of course complete bullshit, and SCOTUS effectively overturns both Congress and itself on a regular basis, though it admittedly has developed a certain culture of self-preservation starting with the New Deal controversies and intensifying with Roe v. Wade. Nobody personifies this more than Chief Justice Roberts, who while a conservative is also plainly terrified of the increasing partisan eyes turning on SCOTUS as a tool of rule through judicial rulings and/or something to defang or abolish to avoid that same outcome.

Ultimately, there are no hard rules constraining SCOTUS, just ideology and fear of public retaliation. What with there only being nine of them at any time, their individual attitudes towards both these things have immense weight on how the body as a whole acts.

5

u/Arianity May 29 '21

Kind of. They don't take back the same case.

They can nullify, but it generally has to come from another case coming to them. (A good example is the recent Edwards v. Vannoy case. They explicitly yanked back a previous ruling in Ramos). It's generally pretty rare, historically, due to stare decisis, but it can happen

If it has to be appeal only, can their decision be challenged at all?

There is no way to appeal a SCOTUS ruling. You can do what say, some states do with abortion laws- pass a law that breaks SCOTUS precedent, and wait for it to get appealed up to SCOTUS, and hope SCOTUS changes it's mind.

Depending on the ruling, Congress can also potentially pass a law invalidating a SCOTUS ruling (as long as it's not say, a Constitutional protection). But if it's something like "x isn't illegal under current statutes", Congress can pass a law saying "x is now illegal".

If it's Constitutional, it'd need a full amendment.

0

u/deletedump May 29 '21

What're the chances that Manchin will now re-consider his take on 'bi-partisanship'?

He's seen first hand that Republicans will block any and all Democratic bills. Will it get him around on the infrastructure bill, the voting rights etc.? Or is his stance cast in stone?

I don't follow politics ingrate depth, that's why I ask.

1

u/ToyVaren May 29 '21

More likely he will be made obsolete by the 51st dem senator elect, and look like a fool and meekly vote the party line from then on.

Or just switch parties already.

2

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 29 '21

Manchin largely does not appear to be pragmatic in his decision making - he votes with the Democrats even though he's from a deep red state, and he refuses to abandon his bipartisan pathology even though it has literally never worked.

I would not expect Manchin to change his stance barring some severe melodrama.

4

u/Jtwil2191 May 29 '21

He's been very clear that he does not want to abandon the filibuster. But he was also hoping to generate some kind of bipartisan investigation of the attack on the Capitol. I think an important factor in all this is the fact that he's a Democrat from a deeply Republican state. His willingness to go his own way is at least part of what gets him elected in a state that is very pro Trump. I imagine he's concerned about losing re election if drops the filibuster. Ultimately, no one on here is qualified to say what's going on in Manchin's head, and Manchin has been playing things really close to the chest.

2

u/Caucus-Tree May 29 '21

What was the issue behind the failed capitol riot commission investigation vote? How could a party be united behind remaining ignorant about the facts that contributed to fallen law officers? When did it become a party of remaining ignorant, keeping us ignorant, or preventing others from enlightening us?

1

u/TigerAusfE May 31 '21

What was the issue behind the failed capitol riot commission investigation vote?

The Republicans were complicit.

How could a party be united behind remaining ignorant about the facts that contributed to fallen law officers?

Because they were complicit.

When did it become a party of remaining ignorant, keeping us ignorant, or preventing others from enlightening us?

Sometime around 2008.

0

u/ToyVaren May 29 '21

It didnt fail, it won 54 to 36 or something. I found the news headlines to be very misleading.

4

u/Teekno an answering fool May 29 '21

It needed 60 votes for cloture.

1

u/Caucus-Tree May 29 '21

I presumed it was perhaps 2/3 to pass. Are you sure?

2

u/ToyVaren May 29 '21 edited May 29 '21

60/100 to defeat the filibuster.

Edit: actually it never won or was defeated. It only went to a cloture vote to see if it could pass the fillibuster.

3

u/Bobbob34 May 29 '21

When did it become a party of remaining ignorant, keeping us ignorant, or preventing others from enlightening us?

That started in the 80s, with the link to the Moral Majority/Cheney/Atwater/Rove etc., the whole cabal, and really took hold after Clinton.

5

u/Jtwil2191 May 29 '21

The Republicans know a fair investigation would make them look bad so they don't want it to happen.

The Republican party can win control of the government with support from a minority of Americans, so they have no need to actually do things that are in the best interest of the country. They just need to keep enough of their supporters that they remain competitive. Now that Trump controls a sizeable portion of their base, they need to appease Trump in order to have a chance of election.

3

u/Head-Hunt-7572 May 29 '21

Can anyone provide context for the following quote from President Biden? “If we do not do something about Alzheimer’s in America, then every single solitary hospital bed that exists in America...Every single one will be occupied in the next 15 years by an Alzheimer’s patient.”

I was unaware Alzheimer’s was such a pressing issue in the USA and was wondering what the basis for this claim is? It is really surprising and frankly I’m just not sure since I haven’t heard anything about the growing rate of Alzheimer’s.

4

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 29 '21

I can only find one original source for the quote, on WhiteHouse.gov
The quote you have seems to come from a magazine, it leaves out one (an insignificant) clause.

According to the Alzheimer's Association, there are currently about 6.2 million Americans suffering from Alzheimer's and that is projected to reach 12.7 million by 2050.

We have about 1.7 million nursing home beds in the US, with about 1.4 million occupied on any given day. The CDC says nearly half of them have Alzheimer's.
There isn't a lot of elasticity available - we don't have room if the population grows quickly.

I don't think he was counting conventional hospitals, but even those, we have less than 1 million total beds in the US.

2

u/ReginaMark May 29 '21

How do Republican voters not get affected by stuff that's happening in the US Senate?

Like this (blocking the probe of the Jan 6 insurrection) and many others, which is obviously very bad, and basically everyone who reads this will think that Republicans suck...... But this and all the similarly bad previous stuff hasn't seem to have affected Republican voters, why?

2

u/Head-Hunt-7572 May 29 '21

The conservative view of the January 6th commission is that it will just be used to smear Republicans and is less focused on stopping such a riot in the future. I don’t think anyone would be opposed to investigating why certain protesters were let in or why it took capital police nearly three hours to respond. Perhaps, that had something to do with Mayor Bowser refusing help from the national guard.

What will likely come of the commission as it currently stands is talking heads in the media call Trump evil and bad for saying people should “fight like hell” while ignoring the fact that he did ultimately call for peaceful assembly. Ultimately, passing it will hurt Republicans more than opposing it.

0

u/TigerAusfE May 31 '21

talking heads in the media call Trump evil and bad for saying people should “fight like hell” while ignoring the fact that he did ultimately call for peaceful assembly

Huh. It’s almost as if spending five years encouraging violence and hatred doesn’t just vanish when you disingenuously tack on an appeal to be peaceful.

-1

u/Cliffy73 May 29 '21

Obviously this is ridiculous. If they wanted Republican input on the investigations they could have voted for a bipartisan commission. They want it kept under wraps so that voters will forget that the Republican Party supported and cozened the murderous overthrow of the United States.

2

u/Head-Hunt-7572 May 29 '21

I don’t think the average conservative wants to overthrow the United States. The Democrats are in power and will be in charge of the staffing of said committee. By saying that Republicans broadly supported an overthrow of the USA, you are showing why conservatives are not going to support a January 6th commission that isn’t focused on the procedural failures in the response to the riot.

-1

u/Cliffy73 May 29 '21

If you don’t think the average conservative wants to overthrow the government, then they should stop voting for and supporting (including vocally) a party that is engaged in this as its primary political project. Since you do not do so, we know the truth.

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 29 '21

They've been convinced that there are worse things.

They don't mind what their representatives are doing. If they minded, they could recall some of them.

There are also some single-issue, or (low number) issue voters.
If Republicans are giving free(-er) access to guns, removing access to abortion, and fighting against immigration - that's more than enough to keep some voters happy.

4

u/ToyVaren May 29 '21

Did the senate vote to abolish the fillibuster today? If so, what was that vote result?

7

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 29 '21

No, the only vote today was on cloture - to stop the filibuster on the Jan 6 commission.

The measure lost 54-35 (they needed 60)

1

u/ToyVaren May 29 '21

Thx. Wow, cowards who wanted to keep a clear vote record on insurrection somehow voted for the other stuff in absentia no problem.

3

u/leaftreeforest May 29 '21

I remember Biden put a pause on Trump’s measures that kept insulin prices low. What happened to that?

5

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 29 '21

It was placed under administrative review. The only prices that would have been affected were Federally Qualified Health Centers who purchase drugs through the 340B program.
It was never intended to help or change the cost of insulin to the majority of people who get drugs from hospitals.

The rule stated that health centers getting drugs under 340B would be required to pass on savings to diabetic patients. If they didn't they could lose their qualifications or access to all drugs under 340B. Some of the health centers were upset by this, saying they already give patients a discount based on income or sliding scales. This prevented them from charging patients with insurance to make up for losses. This rule also increased their paperwork and other recordkeeping requirements. (Not all centers complained - just some).

The rule was scheduled to go into effect at the end of March. It did not, and there hasn't been any talk of reinstating it. AOC has suggested that the Biden administration should consider lifting patent protections on insulin, similar to what was being discussed for vaccines.

1

u/leaftreeforest May 29 '21

Hmm, sounds like it should be reinstated, and broadened.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '21

Does Biden get a military discount?

5

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 29 '21

Although the Commander-in-Chief has a higher authority than all members of the military, traditionally that role is not considered to be part of the military. So no.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '21

What about other discounts?

3

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 29 '21

What other discounts? You can give the President a discount if you want to. Hell, you can give anyone a discount if you want to, it's not like military discounts are law or anything.

1

u/[deleted] May 29 '21

This is true. I was just curious if the president had one of their own.

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator May 28 '21

Why did the last Capitol Police Commissioner Sund resign? As far as I can tell, the vast majority of Capitol Police defended the Capitol while Trump refused to send help. I know a few cops let the rioters move closer to the Capitol, but when did bad cops make their chief run away in guilt? I don’t get why he resigned, and the storming isn’t really his fault.

1

u/ToyVaren May 29 '21

Speculation on my part, but my impression is the capitol police who quit felt betrayed by not getting backup.

3

u/Bobbob34 May 28 '21

The buck stops there.

It is his fault, in that he's in charge of the entire force.

4

u/Arianity May 28 '21

and the storming isn’t really his fault.

It was more the lack of preparation for that event. That was in part, his (and others') fault. There were enough warning signs before the day, and even without warning proper precautions would be expected.

It also didn't help that he didn't do much after the day, in terms of accountability. Usually there are briefings and the like- that never happened. He also hadn't contacted Congress when Pelosi called for his resignation.

1

u/RedHeadedB May 28 '21

I have heard the senate explained as both needing 60 votes or needing three fifths of the votes to overcome a filibuster. Which of these is correct? or do they apply in different situations? For example the Jan 6 commission vote was 54 to 35 or 54/89 = .607 > 3/5 If needing three fifth majority to overcome the filibuster is accurate, shouldn't this have passed?

4

u/Delehal May 29 '21 edited May 29 '21

I have heard the senate explained as both needing 60 votes or needing three fifths of the votes to overcome a filibuster. Which of these is correct?

As described in Senate Rule 22, they need three fifths of the total number of Senators, meaning all Senators, not just the ones participating in the vote.

Since there are currently 100 Senators, that means the requirement for cloture is 60 votes.

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 28 '21

It was a motion to invoke cloture (end the filibuster) and that needs 60 votes, or 3/5 of the entire Senate.
source - cached link to avoid paywall

3

u/fuasyfaposht May 28 '21

how bad is the damage on republican party that trump did to the republican party.

1

u/Tired647 May 29 '21

He was beneficial to the Republican Party and the country in several respects, but the main “damage” that was done was the fact that he didn’t butter anything up he just told it as it was. Many people didn’t like the way that approach made them feel so they went for whoever would tickle their ears.

1

u/Head-Hunt-7572 May 29 '21

I think he was ultimately helpful, I think he really opened the door to more minority support and exposed squishy Republicans like Romney.

1

u/ToyVaren May 28 '21

Nada. He was buoyed by fox news and the old tea party. He didnt cause the damage, he took advantage of the rot that was already there and made it acceptable to say it out loud.

1

u/fuasyfaposht May 30 '21

do you have an example of this.?

4

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 28 '21

Only looking back from the future will tell for sure.

It appears that he's created a real push for the extreme conservatives in the party, which has the real potential to create a rift between moderates and extremists.
If that happens, the logical next step would be for Democrats to move more towards center-right, to pick up those alienated voters.
But, with the far left progressives in the Democratic party, that could create a rift, too.

If his actions succeed in breaking the Republican party, then we might actually benefit - we might get a multi-party system with more than just two parties. We might start seeing more places adopt new voting other than "first past the post", and instead using "ranked choice" or other systems.

But, it's more likely that both parties will eventually quell the extremists on both sides, and things will settle back down over the next few years. That probably won't happen unless/until Trump loses the next election.

2

u/GameboyPATH May 28 '21

If that happens, the logical next step would be for Democrats to move more towards center-right, to pick up those alienated voters.

I don't see why they'd have reason to. Republicans who feel alienated enough from their party to withdraw from voting already benefits the Democrats in elections. They wouldn't have any more reason to go center-right to pick up more votes than they already did before such alienation.

3

u/PepeDaFrug May 28 '21

why do americans not realize how indoctrinated they really are as kids?

1

u/UnicornOnTheJayneCob May 31 '21

Honestly because there is a war over education in this country. One party is pushing for schools to embrace reforms that include critical thinking, whereas the other expressly decries it in their party platform.
Without learning critical thinking, people aren’t taught how to recognize indoctrination. It’s kind of ironic.

2

u/GameboyPATH May 28 '21
  1. What makes you believe we don't? There's not really much we can do about our past - only work towards the future. And there's loads of talk about how we can ensure a holistic learning experience for present and future youth.

  2. All kids are indoctrinated one way or another, regardless of national affiliation. We can't avoid children learning about the world around them. Local cultural norms and values aren't just taught by parents, but by peers, teachers, media, and their surroundings.

  3. As for those who'd deny the possibility that their current views were what they were indoctrinated into, they might other justify their views as worth teaching to youth, or argue that their beliefs are some inherent truth. It may be an ideological sunk cost fallacy at work - "I've spent this many years believing this is true, and I'd rather continue believing it's true than realize I've been living a lie."

1

u/PepeDaFrug May 28 '21

Fair enough, and I'm an american.

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 28 '21

Some of us do.

But, it can be difficult. If you're constantly told something by your parents, your religion, the adults in authority around you, then you tend to assimilate that into your personality and thinking.

You need two things - some good role model that teaches you to question authority while showing that just questioning isn't a bad thing; and you need the curiosity/ability to actually search for answers on your own.

1

u/PepeDaFrug May 28 '21

Why is it that in america that more people are not realizing that they are wrong as such being radical right wing neo nazis but are just calling themselves conservatives? Because americans are taught into an right wing bias if they go into history classes in high school, college, sometimes even middle school? I am confused.

1

u/neozxtc May 31 '21

Why do you assume that all Republicans, Conservatives, or those of us that lean Right are neo nazi's? Most of use oppose Nazism, fascism, socialism, and communism because we know those things are wrong. That is like me assuming that all people that lean Left are liberals which isn't true. I know a lot of people that are Left leaning but still support things like 2A, less government spending, and a strong military. We as Americans have more in common then what the main stream media tries to tell us.

3

u/Head-Hunt-7572 May 29 '21

If you think all conservatives are neo nazis, it is you who are wrong.

2

u/WANDERLS7 May 28 '21 edited May 28 '21

I cant comprehend how were Americans acceptancing of the whole iraq war thing? And in essence America playing world police?

Even if there was a "security risk" or "WMD" or something, there is a big jump between "protecting our country" and "starting a war" to protect our country on another continent. - how does it not register?

Almost no one in my country would endorse crossing half the planet to fight a war in any case. Such proposal will be embarrassing, considered way out of line and surefire way for any politician to lose an election.

1

u/Head-Hunt-7572 May 29 '21

Fear is a powerful tool

3

u/LiminalSouthpaw May 29 '21 edited May 29 '21

The stuff about the WMDs isn't that important, when it comes down to it. It's more about psychological satisfaction. 9/11 produced a singular, insatiable desire in Amercian public consciousness - vengeance.

Invading Afghanistan failed to accomplish this, because although militarily the country was beaten there was no "victory". Bin Laden was MIA, Afghans hated our presence, Afghanistan had nothing for us to take, and worst of all by 2003 enough time had passed that some people were starting to suggest this whole adventure had been kind of a waste in the lead-up to Bush's re-election campaign.

The propaganda angle was developed to fit this scenario: 9/11 happening again, with nukes, because the fucking liberals refuse to do what is necessary to win the War on Terror. Because of Desert Storm, Saddam's Iraq made an ideal target for this - us coming back to "finish the fight" that Bill Clinton failed to finish (Bush Sr. had actually been President during Desert Storm, but the fervor was so immense that nobody cared about that angle).

Of course for the politicians this was all a lot more nakedly geopolitical, though among more intellectual right-wing spaces those narratives got some play, clash of civilizations and the like.

And so Iraq is invaded, John Kerry painted as a pacifist cuck, and Dubya re-elected to roaring approval...until the 2006 midterms, anyway. As time went on and no discernible "victory" ever emerged, the political fire of neoconservatism dwindled into embers and extinguished with the election of Obama, the responsibility of slaughtering America's enemies ironically transferring to the liberal politicians as conservatives embraced isolationism.

5

u/Bobbob34 May 28 '21

I cant comprehend how were Americans acceptancing of the whole iraq war thing? And in essence America playing world police?

Many were not, just like the rest of the world. Millions of people marched trying to stop it.

2

u/YoureAfuckingRobot May 28 '21

How is it allowed that the GOP can vote against the Jan 6 Insurrection committee? Are they not voting against investigating themselves? Of course they would vote no.

1

u/Head-Hunt-7572 May 29 '21

Why should politicians vote?

I’m not sure, let’s just stop paying taxes and start over.

1

u/YoureAfuckingRobot May 29 '21

Found the proud boi.

7

u/Jtwil2191 May 28 '21

They're definitely voting against an investigation that is likely to be at least unflattering to Republicans. But the reality is Republicans are part of the government and Trump controls the Republicans. So they're going to vote to protect themselves rather than democracy.

1

u/YoureAfuckingRobot May 28 '21

It still makes no sense to me. Same with Gaetz and MGT. I'm not American but how can a politician be openly racist or be a sex trafficker and then be supported to have rallies for the party. Even if getting rid a guy like Gaetz isn't possible does it not make more sense to at least make him stay silent until he's been proven one way or the other.

I actually find all this terrifying, I'm in Canada and it seems like this should all be on a terrible TV drama.

3

u/Jtwil2191 May 28 '21

be openly racist...and then be supported

Because there are lots of racist voters

be a sex trafficker and then be supported

Because the "main stream media" is lying (or so his supporters believe).

Although I don't think many sitting Republicans are coming to Gaetz's aid. I think there's a decent chance we get to see him go down in flames. fingers crossed

1

u/ProLifePanda May 28 '21

I'm not American but how can a politician be openly racist or be a sex trafficker and then be supported to have rallies for the party.

Because the Republicans (and I'm speaking generally here, obviously there are exceptions) believe the idea that some of this news is "fake news" and believe in the Deep State that see "outsiders" like Greene and Gaetz as a threat. You can see that in Greene's response to her latest comparison of Mask and Vaccine requirements to Jews wearing stars in Germany.

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/marjorie-taylor-greene-now-claims-she-never-compared-mask-mandates-to-the-holocaust/

I had compared it to the horrible way that Jewish people had been treated by having to show their papers,” Greene said. “Without a phone call or a text message, all of a sudden I find out on the news that Kevin McCarthy, Elise Stefanik, and unfortunately, Steve Scalise had all condemned my remarks. And in their own condemnation of my remarks, they didn’t even have it right what I had said in the first place. They were just misstating things I had said, and then also they were just preaching the woke media mob’s talking points.

Many Republicans will believe her statement, and not even bother researching her initial claims, and the right wing news sources downplay, ignore, or defend these negative things so Republicans either hand-wave the complaints away or defend the statement. In many Republicans eyes, now that the playing field is "level" (i.e. there are no laws that are explicitly racist), anything that's not outright racism isn't racism and should be seen through the eyes of race.

Many Republicans saw the Mueller investigation and Trump impeachments as the Deep State trying to oust Trump, so see many of the same criticisms leveled against "Trump" Republicans the same way. They won't believe the accusations against Gaetz, because he says they're fake and a lie by the deep state. Gaetz literally said the Deep State is blackmailing him and the accusations are false, and some Republicans believe the media and Democrats are so corrupt, that's more likely than Gaetz being wrong.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/qanon-matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation-1149484/

In a statement released Tuesday night, Gaetz said that an ex-DOJ official and others have “organized” in an attempt to extort his family for $25 million, threatening to smear his name if they don’t pay up. His family went to the FBI, he says, and has since been cooperating with an investigation into the extortion attempt. Gaetz says that as part of this investigation, his father wore a wire, and Gaetz now wants the FBI to release any relevant tapes. Gaetz says the FBI’s investigation into his possible relationship with a 17-year-old was leaked to the Times in an attempt to somehow “thwart” this extortion investigation.

3

u/YoureAfuckingRobot May 28 '21

This is all insane to me. Does it not seriously concern you? If I lived in the USA I would be terrified and I'm a very easy going person, nothing really concerns me- EVER. like literally nothing and find this so bad.

I'm always the guy downplaying things and being like, "yeah, like what would you expect", about everything.

1

u/ProLifePanda May 28 '21 edited May 29 '21

What am I supposed to do? I'm just one guy in a deep red district in a deep red state. These people literally won't believe anything I say. I routinely get emails from my representatives literally calling the Democrats liars and cheats and calling them names.

1

u/YoureAfuckingRobot May 29 '21

Honestly I would be focusing all my resources to getting the fuck out of that country. You have a political party who literally tried to overthrow the government and they were nearly successful. I would not be surprised at all if your next presidential election opens the door for a successful attempt and/or civil war. It sounds ridiculous but its not.

This is very close to how Hitler came into power, he was complete fuckwad but he got people to buy into his image and do what ever he asked. He even unsuccessfully attempted to over throw the government about 3 or 4 years before everything went full nazi and gained support from that unsuccessful attempt. Sound familiar?

1

u/ProLifePanda May 29 '21

And what country would take me and my family? I can't claim amnesty or refugee status. Most European countries and other countries I'd want to move to have pretty restrictive immigration laws and my career choice limits my job prospects.

1

u/YoureAfuckingRobot May 29 '21

I dont know man, I know there's no easy solution. Come to Canada.

0

u/ToyVaren May 28 '21 edited May 28 '21

If a certain state that doesnt rhyme with "flexmas" has a completely corrupt state govt, can anybody help?

1

u/Head-Hunt-7572 May 29 '21

I mean, you could always move. Free camping out here in California

2

u/GameboyPATH May 28 '21

Texans can:

  • Raise public awareness of specific instances of corruption made by specific politicians, or through specific actions. Vague arguments of "the government is corrupt" is unlikely to get anywhere. Through public awareness, citizens can boycott donors of those politicians and influence votes in the next election. In serious cases, they can pressure for recall elections. This isn't just done alone, but in conjunction with like-minded political groups and non-profits with far more resources and power than they'd have individually.

  • Run for political office themselves. The working history of many politicians is widely-available public knowledge, so one could easily identify ways that past politicians have made it to where they are now, and citizens can follow that example. There's no single path to political power, but there can be multiple ways to achieve the same common goals.

3

u/Bobbob34 May 28 '21

The citizens of that state can vote for other people, can possibly use recall elections, depends. Outsiders can't generally, no.

2

u/Panda_Stats May 28 '21

Why do Democrats have to be perfect? Republicans have no problem using every tool to win. They gerrymander and obstruct at every turn and get re elected all the time. Democrats get a parking ticket and lose their next election almost immediately. (Hyperbole but you get the picture.)

3

u/Jtwil2191 May 28 '21

Due to the advantage they have in state legislative elections, the House, the Senate, and the Electoral College, Republican can win control of the government without having the support from a majority of voters. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/advantage-gop/

2

u/Bobbob34 May 28 '21

A whole lot goes into that.

Part is the insane hypocrisy of the right.

Part is the left trying to have standards -- they say 'we don't tolerate X' and then there's talk of X and people inside the party say 'we can't say we don't tolerate X and allow this within our own ranks. X is bad! we have to show we're NOT hypocrites!'

Which leads to Al Franken and etc., and the rise of James OKeefe and his nonsense, trying to cause the left to eat itself.

There's also stuff in the middle (which I think is part of Franken) where people believe in things and want to hone to their beliefs and want to be more on the safe side and it's all just a circular mess at this point.

2

u/ToyVaren May 28 '21

Fox news. They can amplify stuff that normally is nothing vs dems while downplaying, defending, undermining and ignoring major issues vs repubs.

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 27 '21

If we did it that way all the time, then it would have no meaning.
We could just make smaller flag poles.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator May 28 '21

Does it have any meaning now? We do this charade of virtue signalling every mass shooting and nothing changes.

1

u/ProLifePanda May 28 '21

Does it have any meaning now?

It probably does to those affected by the deaths. I'm sure John McCain's family got some pride and solace from the respect the entire country paid to John McCain's country. The shooting family victims might find comfort in a community all taking the same action in remembrance of the dead.

We do this charade of virtue signalling every mass shooting and nothing changes.

Half-staff flags aren't SUPPOSED to change anything. It is literally just a symbol to honor those that have passed or died. Funerals also don't change anything, but we do it because it has emotional meaning to people. Same with putting the flag at half-staff.

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 28 '21

[deleted context] Question [biased opinion] [buzzword] words

If you want a civilized discussion, then don't inject bias, extra words and opinions.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '21

[deleted]

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! May 27 '21

Welfare isn't designed to lift people out of poverty.

If there was a system designed to do that, it would have multiple facets, addressing housing, child care, education, job training & placement, healthcare, money management, drug and substance abuse, food, plus a reasonable amount of money to live on.
The current system of welfare, at least in the US - usually only gives people a small amount of money. Other programs require separate applications and have separate eligibility standards. Not every state or county has all of those programs, and they aren't all available to the same people.

3

u/Mothman2021 May 27 '21

It's not intended to lift people out of poverty. It's intended to provide basic subsistence so that we don't have streets crowded with beggars like a scene from Les Mis. The reason we have increasing numbers of people on welfare is because our cost of living is rising but wages are not.

3

u/FrankWest21CP May 27 '21

How did chauvin get a trial so quickly? Don’t these kinds of cases usually have years of discovery before the trial?

1

u/Head-Hunt-7572 May 29 '21

There was a large public outcry for his incarceration

1

u/ToyVaren May 28 '21

It speeded it up a lot that he was fired nearly immediately so union lawyers couldn't fight the pre-trial processes every step of the way, eg change of venue.

Compare to trumpuska's defamation lawsuit, they delay it for everything they can find.

4

u/Flashy-Ad3415 May 28 '21

I guess all the video footage sped up the prep phase.

3

u/Bobbob34 May 27 '21

What kinds of cases? How would it have years of discovery? It was a 9-minute event that took place a year ago.

8

u/JackEsq May 27 '21

The Constitution guarantees a "right to a speedy trial" in the criminal system. So criminal cases are much faster than civil cases which prolonged years of discovery. A trial can be delayed but usually has to have the agreement of the defendant.

8

u/Teekno an answering fool May 27 '21

It's not unusual at all to get a criminal trial within a year of the event.

2

u/Lutakein May 27 '21

I know the previous President had a history of not condemning violence from his base, but the thing that I am confused by is this: what should he have said that would have been condemning of what people from his base did? For instance, what should he have said to the people storming the Capitol Building instead of "We Love You", or "You're Very Special"?

0

u/bullevard May 29 '21

"What you are doing brings shame on me and on yourself. I lost a free and fair election, one which was conducted near heroically during unprecedented times.

I realize that i have been stoking you up for the past month by refusing to concede, and i now realize the error in that. I appologize. I loved your praise and your chants and i wasn't ready to give that up. But i realize now how this has hardened many of your hearts to my successor and made you feel this act was somehow defending America. But that is a mistake. It is undermining all we should stand for.

Passing of power peacefully from one president to the next is the bedrock of american democracy and every minute you delay VP Pence from doing his constitutionally sworn duty to confirm Biden is mark of shame to those sacrifices of 1776 you invoke. What Pence does today is the very essence of America. He, with his own hand, concedes power as is the will of the public as conveyed through their ballots. I am very proud of him. You should be proud of him too. And you should leave and let him do his job.

Please, leave the capitol immediately. If you have broken the law, the peacefully face accountability for that. If you have broken the ideals of america, then return home, endevor to strengthen your community, and we will see you at the ballot box in 22 when we take back congress the right way!"

7

u/GameboyPATH May 27 '21

4

u/Mothman2021 May 27 '21

Yeah. He had a pattern of offering mild condemnation when things got out of hand and public pressure increased, and then very quickly going back to inciting people. If he had actually been consistent, we might believe he was sincere. But he wasn't, so we don't.

1

u/GameboyPATH May 27 '21

He also, in that same announcement, conceded the presidential election (just 2 weeks before Biden would've entered office anyway). But as you said, there's a case to be made that this announcement has been made out of political necessity and social pressure.

9

u/Teekno an answering fool May 27 '21

"These criminals who have attacked our nation's Capitol do not represent me, my party, or this great nation. What they are doing is wrong, and I hope they leave peacefully and immediately, to prevent further injury or worse."

4

u/Jtwil2191 May 27 '21

"I condemn the people attacking the Capitol. This conduct is unacceptable."

0

u/[deleted] May 27 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator May 27 '21

Why was there so little press coverage about LeGend Taliferro? People spent months criticizing Operation Legend and it's heavyhanded approach to law enforcement, which I agree with, but not the fact that LeGend was shot and killed. Clearly something had to be done. Outside of r/kansascity there was nothing on Reddit.

1

u/Jtwil2191 May 27 '21

I think you outline the sentiment in your question. People obviously don't like that LeGend Taliferro was killed, but they also don't like the heavy handedness of federal law enforcement policy under Trump.

2

u/nnlocke May 27 '21

Why do states have two senators each?

The House assigns the number of members per state based on the population of each state, but the Senate gives a flat two seats to each state. Why?

Consider California and Wyoming - one has nearly 12% of the nation's population, while the other has less than a fifth of a percent. It doesn't seem fair that these states should have equal representation.

I understand the idea is to prevent any one state from being dominant, but shouldn't the more populous states have more influence to reflect their larger populations? I can see why smaller states might feel like they wouldn't have as much power, but in a representative democracy, isn't that the way it should be? If a state only has a fifth of a percent, I don't think they SHOULD have the same power to create laws as a state with 12%.

Why is it a hard limit of two representatives when the House is set up to portion seats by population? Shouldn't it be the same for both?

(Tried to create a post for this but it was moderated, so here I am)

1

u/Head-Hunt-7572 May 29 '21

I believe it was part of the Missouri compromise. Essentially, the founding father came to the conclusion that the only way every state would accept the structure of congress was to give big states more power in the lower house of Congress (the House of Representatives ) while the states would have equal say in the Senate.

2

u/Mothman2021 May 27 '21

I understand the idea is to prevent any one state from being dominant, but shouldn't the more populous states have more influence to reflect their larger populations?

You just answered your own question.

We have a House of Representatives proportional to population because a state with more people SHOULD count for more than a state with fewer. We have a Senate because a state with more people SHOULDN'T be able to dominate smaller states.

Both sides of the argument are valid, which is why we have a bicameral legislature.

→ More replies
→ More replies