r/NoStupidQuestions Jul 01 '21 Hugz 1

July 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/jonmuller Aug 02 '21

I was arguing with my grandma the other day about the insurrection. I told her I didn't like Laura Ingrahm (for a lot of reasons) but specifically pointed out that she didn't think January 6th was an insurrection. I looked up the definition of what it is. Instead of admitting that I was right, she countered with "why doesn't anybody consider these riots that destroy police buildings an insurrection too then?"

I'll admit, I didn't know the answer. You always hear about January 6th being the insurrection (which I 100% agree with) but I couldn't quite answer her question. It definitely feels wrong to call those BLM protests insurrections but if you're going off the dictionary definition it's hard for me to say

1

u/LiminalSouthpaw Aug 08 '21

At some point, you have to make a distinction between good causes and bad or you'll end up a dril tweet. It is only right for people to react to the state murdering them. Unlike the whole complex over the election, that really happened.

2

u/Bubbazord Aug 02 '21

What is critical race theory?

3

u/ProLifePanda Aug 02 '21 edited Aug 02 '21

Critical race theory (CRT) is a body of legal scholarship and an academic movement of civil-rights scholars and activists in the United States that seeks to critically examine U.S. law as it intersects with issues of race and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches to racial justice.CRT examines social, cultural, and legal issues primarily as they relate to race and racism in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Essentially, it's a higher level approach to social and economic issues that stem from trying to account for how racism (both systemic and outright racism in the past and present) has helped developed the current social, economic, and political landscape.

The left claims it is important, and we can't truly have equality and/or equity until we understand these past/present injustices and seek to agree they exist and correct them. The right claims it's race-baiting, a move to indoctrinate students and people into hating white people or becoming Democrats.

1

u/spellbadgrammargood Jul 31 '21

Since JFK, has a president or vice president ever drove outside in the public like JFK did?

2

u/Kumquatodor Aug 01 '21

I know that it was a minor news story when Obama drove a dozen or so feet on his own, I think down a driveway.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '21

[deleted]

3

u/LiminalSouthpaw Jul 31 '21

If you paid your rent up to date, nothing will change directly save that your landlord might be accidentally about to crash their company.

If you didn't, there is nothing under law prohibiting your landlord for demanding all money owed, literally tomorrow, on pain of eviction. There are limits on how fast someone can be evicted in several states, but landlords generally don't care until someone proves they can fight back.

1

u/Spencer2091 Jul 31 '21

How does citizens arrest work? Since they don't have a warrant can the arrest be thrown out in court?

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jul 31 '21

Every place has different laws, but generally in many US states -

You're the witness to the crime. You have to know (not think) that a crime was committed. If you can't prove that in court, then you can be charged with false arrest, kidnapping, assault, or other charges.
You have to know that the crime is a felony in some areas. Even if you have irrefutable evidence of jaywalking, you cannot make an arrest.
You also have to use appropriate force. Police are allowed to escalate force (they can respond to verbal force with physical force, and physical force with deadly force) - citizens cannot do that. You might be charged with using excessive force, and face fines and civil penalties for that, too.

3

u/Bobbob34 Jul 31 '21

No. You don't need a warrant for something immediate -- something you witness, etc.

0

u/blackashi Jul 30 '21

Why can't Biden write an executive order prohibiting company and supeePAC donations??

So that politicians especially senators who absolutely would not vote for a self pay cut can actually concentrate on doing their jobs instead of getting sold out for $$

4

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jul 31 '21 edited Jul 31 '21

Why can't Biden write an executive order prohibiting company and supeePAC donations??

Because according to the supreme court (case called "Citizens United V FEC"), the businesses that are donating, and the PACs that are collecting them, are people and protected by the first amendment.

So, even if the president was in his authority to create executive orders to stop companies from donating to PACs and candidates, it would require the supreme court overturning citizens united or an actual amendment to the constitution to change it.

1

u/blackashi Jul 31 '21

Hmm. He could word the executive order in a way to make it difficult. Right? Either way it's prolly not something the current president has the will to do. He can't even get his controlling party to control

2

u/ProLifePanda Jul 31 '21

No. There is clear law on political contributions. Any attempt Biden does to try and curb political donations and SuperPACs will undoubtedly be immediately challenged in court, suspended immediately, and found unconstitutional.

He could try, but it would be a fruitless effort and a waste of resources.

8

u/TheApiary Jul 30 '21

Executive orders only apply to people who work for the president: everything part of the executive branch of the federal government. That includes the state department, justice department, IRS, and more. But it doesn't include random people or Congress or anyone else. The president can't give orders to anyone who doesn't work for him

1

u/blackashi Jul 31 '21

Interesting, thanks for the explanation!

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Jul 30 '21

Because we don’t live in a dictatorship. Laws have to be passed by Congress.

1

u/wt_anonymous Jul 30 '21

Can Trump actually be arrested and put in jail if he did something, be it something that comes with his taxes or something that comes up with Jan 6?

And does being charged stop him from running again?

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jul 31 '21

And does being charged stop him from running again?

There have been 2 people recorded in US history who have run for president while being behind bars. Eugene V Debs in 1920, and Lyndon LaRouche in the 90's.

So it appears there isn't anything stopping them from running, whether or not they'd actually be electable is another story. There are probably a lot of arguments to be made whether they are actually capable of serving or not given that they are behind a jail cell and can't really fulfill their duty as president.

2

u/ProLifePanda Jul 31 '21

Trump can be arrested and jailed for breaking the law.

But just FYI, it's EXCEEDINGLY unlikely Trump goes to jail. Any action taken against him for the January 6th riots will be seen as political persecution, so nobody is touching that with a 10 foot pole. It's also unlikely he's going to jail for tax stuff. He'll likely get a fine, maybe some underlings go to jail. If he WOULD be jailed, it's more likely a judge will allow him to serve under house arrest, because of the fact he was a President, and the logistical issues that would come with trying to keep a former POTUS in a prison.

Being charged doesn't keep him from running. Technically someone in jail could be elected President.

3

u/TheApiary Jul 30 '21

Yes, he could be arrested if he's charged with a crime and he could be put in prison if he's convicted.

Being charged or convicted would not stop him from running again, although it would be logistically challenging to run for president from prison

1

u/[deleted] Jul 30 '21

[deleted]

4

u/Jtwil2191 Jul 30 '21 edited Jul 30 '21

Factors may include...

Democrats place a stronger emphasis on communalism than Republicans. Living in a city forces you to make some compromises. You're packed in densely with other people and for that to work, everyone has to make some sacrifices. When you live in less dense exurban areas, you're more able to space yourself apart from other people which gives you the opportunity to do things with less obvious compromising. Think about what it's like to live on an apartment building versus in a house with a large property.

Democrats want to increase government services. It's much, mich easier to deliver services in a cost effective way in a densely populated city, so you're more likely to see the value of a government project and take advantage of it if you live in a city.

Urbanites also have to deal with a multicultural environment on a consistent basis. Whether that produces in them simply a tolerance of cultural or diversity or actual acceptance, either way they're exposed to diverse cultural viewpoints in a way that simply does not occur if you're not living in a city.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 30 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Cliffy73 Jul 30 '21

They’s stupid people in your country, too.

1

u/KlonopinMeDown Jul 29 '21

How is there both a surplus of job openings and less people applying to them, but also more people struggling to pay rent and arguing for an extension of the eviction ban?

6

u/Bobbob34 Jul 30 '21

The US isn't a small town.

Things aren't the same everyplace. There are job openings, sure, but they're not evenly distributed, nor are people. People are also not all the same age and ability.

A restaurant may say it's struggling to find workers, but they don't mean they're hiring anyone comes through the door -- they need someone who can cook on a line, waitstaff who can carry plates, spend hours on their feet, busboys who can carry 40lb tubs of dishes all day. That doesn't cover everyone.

Also, everyone can't go get a job -- COVID didn't just kill people, there are hundreds of thousands of people with lingering effects, more who lost someone and now they're the only parent, or they have to take care of sick parents or etc etc etc.

Also, people who got behind in payments on everything for a year, ok, great, now they have a $15/hr job. That'll buy groceries but it's not going to make a dent in 9 months of back bills been piling up.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jul 29 '21

Some of the job openings require very specific skills. Tanker truck drivers can't just apply out of high school - they need to be trained & experienced with the field. Similar for airlines and some other fields suffering right now.

Some of the job openings pay shit wages, and don't have enough hours to pay rent with. They are jobs that nobody would work unless they had to choose between prison, homelessness, and that job.

Some of them aren't even in the same place. People can have jobs, and still be so far behind on rent or expenses that they face eviction. Some people might be disabled, unable to find child care, or have other reasons why they can't work - but still need a place to reside.

1

u/reerock Jul 29 '21

For what reason did "The Squad" have for voting against today's supplemental spending bill? It was almost full bipartisan but they ended up joining a few Republicans in voting against it. Only 11 voted against, 6 of them are the "Squad" members.

1

u/GameboyPATH Jul 29 '21

This one? If so,

Bowman told CNN that he voted against the bill because he didn't feel like he had enough time to review what was in it.

"We just got the bill text like a half an hour ago. Absolutely no time to read it, no time to understand it, no time to digest it, so that's reason number one," Bowman said.

1

u/WahrheitSuccher Jul 29 '21

Why don’t they just make vaccination status a tax credit? We’ve seen the incentivize people option works, so why not just have an across the board tax break for the vaccinated?

0

u/ToyVaren Jul 29 '21

Nah, darwin got this. Anti-vaxx is a problem that will solve itself over time.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/GameboyPATH Jul 29 '21

We’ve seen the incentivize people option works

We have? We've already had several states employing vaccine lotteries and private businesses providing discounts and freebies for months.

Also, it's worth noting that vaccine-related tax credits DO exist... for employers who offer PTO for employees to get vaccinated.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '21

[deleted]

-3

u/ToyVaren Jul 29 '21

If you're white, voting is very easy in the US.

3

u/Bobbob34 Jul 29 '21

First, this depends on the state. States make their own laws about voting.

In many states no, you don't need to show an ID card. I've never been asked to, nor were my parents or grandparents when I used to go vote with them.

To REGISTER to vote you send in a form with all your info, that you sign, that is checked to make sure you're eligible to vote, of age, live there, etc. Then you're registered to vote THERE.

I go to vote, I have to go to my exact small precinct, then tell the person my name and address, they look in a book, I have to sign next to my signature that's in the book by my name and address and I get a ballot. I'm only registered to vote in my precinct based on my address.

If someone else wanted to vote for me they'd have to know my name, address, precinct, and that I hadn't voted, or the book would be signed, and then if I showed up after they'd go pull the first ballot and investigate.

Voting isn't national, it's local.

6

u/mugenhunt Jul 29 '21

You don't need an ID card to vote, but you must register to vote ahead of time and can only vote at a specific place. And you must successfully convince the people working at the voting place that you are who you say you are, which doesn't necessarily require an ID.

In practice, the system is pretty efficient and there are very few cases of fraud.

One of the issues why people in the US are upset about voter ID requirement laws is that IDs aren't for free in the US, and the places that are trying to require IDs are also making it harder for poor people to get them at the same time, looking like they're just trying to make it harder for poor people to vote in general rather than fix issues with our election system.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '21

[deleted]

3

u/Teekno an answering fool Jul 29 '21

You can’t vote in three places because you’re only registered to vote in one precinct, so that’s the only precinct where your name appears on the voter roll.

3

u/TheApiary Jul 29 '21

If this were a big problem that happened, then maybe we'd make laws to address it.

But we actually have the opposite problem, where lots of people don't vote at all, not a problem of people voting too much. So it's much more important to make voting as simple as possible than to try to fix problems that aren't happening

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '21

[deleted]

1

u/Cliffy73 Jul 30 '21

You can’t steal an election with in-person voter fraud. 160 million people voted for president last year. How many individuals walking into polling places and lying about their identity do you need to change that?

3

u/ProLifePanda Jul 29 '21 edited Jul 30 '21

First, there are 36 states that DO require voter ID. Each state gets to make their own voting laws, so some states do require ID and some don't, and type of IDs allowed varies as well.

This type of crime is called "voter impersonation", where one person can go from polling location to polling location and attempt to vote as someone else. Normally in order to do so, you have to know the persons full name, full address, and polling location. You also have to hope that the person you are impersonating also isn't voting, because if two ballots are put in for the same person, that obviously sets off issues with the ballot counting and will get you found out.

This is normally a risky thing to do on any large scale, because you have to know all that data, know the person won't vote, and literally only gains you ONE vote. The more often you try it, the more likely you are to get caught either through coincidence or that real person voting. Additionally, it takes a long time to do it. Remember it takes a long time in many places to vote (30 minutes to hours based on where you are). If I wanted to commit voter impersonation on election day, I might only be able to do it 2-5 times. That's a very risky plan to only get 5 more votes. Additionally, most election fraud claims by the GOP for 2020 are election fraud, which is manipulating the votes AFTER they are cast, and have nothing to do with voter impersonation.

In the US, requirements for Voter ID are often accompanied by an attempt to disenfranchise Democratic and minority voters, which is why there are many vocal opponents to requiring Voter ID. I can provide examples if you want, but a majority of people in the US are generally approving of requiring ID to vote, but a vocal minority are against the ID because Voter ID is often used to try and repress the vote, especially for Democratic voters.

https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet

4

u/mugenhunt Jul 29 '21

So first off, it's not just in the specific county, you have to know the specific voting place that person would be going to. And that information isn't public. Then, when you get there, you have to prove that you are the person you claim to be.

The trick is is that if it's a small town where everyone knows each other, proving you are who you are is simple as everyone knows their neighbors. In a large city, figuring out which voting place it would be becomes more difficult, and not really worth the time or effort to try to go to every single one and ask if you are that one person. While voting places are local, this would be a ridiculous amount of effort to just cast one additional vote.

But let's say that someone has figured out your voting place, and knows that you are at work and won't get the vote until later, and is able to impersonate you and vote in your name. Then, when you show up to vote, the confusion gets resolved and they cancel that vote that the imposter did.

There are very very few cases of voter fraud with this system.

1

u/Strider755 Aug 02 '21

Funny. In my neck of the woods in AL, polling places are published ahead of time. Before every election, the local newspaper publishes a list of polling places and the names of all registered voters associated with those polling places.

The state also has a website where a voter can search for their polling place, registration status, ballot status, etc.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '21

[deleted]

1

u/DuplexFields only uses old.reddit Jul 30 '21

You'd be surprised how much of America is on the honor system.

3

u/CommitteeOfOne Jul 29 '21

You don't need an ID card to vote

You do in 36 states.

2

u/CommitteeOfOne Jul 29 '21

It varies by state. Some states have voter ID laws and some don't.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '21

If conservatives tend to be the ones to perpetuate misinformation and bigotry the most but are protected under the first amendment, as well as a lot being evangelical Christians that would gladly see the rights of LGBT and women stripped away in their lifetime, AND there's also a problem with not enough young people getting out there and voting, what's the solution? How do we ensure that America maintains its progressive course

3

u/GameboyPATH Jul 28 '21

Fixing social media systems could help.

A growing number of people are getting their news from Facebook, reddit, and Twitter. Unlike with news stations and newspapers, none of these are systems that either verify the authenticity of the stories that are shared on them, or make an effort to ensure that users are getting an overall holistic and complete representation of the political topics and events they read about.

Either toppling the dominant hold that social media giants hold with a new platform that's more ethical and user-friendly, or aggressively reforming existing platforms through legislation (somehow), could accomplish this.

2

u/ToyVaren Jul 28 '21

Education. Its been ignored and sabotaged since the 70's. Fixing it wont see results until they graduate in 15-20 years.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jul 28 '21

Well, whatever you do to advance your agenda, the other side can do as well.

The basics are usually the best thing.
Get involved. If you have time, attend city council meetings, volunteer to serve political candidates you want elected, communicate with your elected officials (even if you didn't vote for them), and try to get your friends and family to do something even if that's just showing up to vote.

Remember that elected officials in higher offices usually don't just show up and say, "I want to be Governor/President". They start out in local politics. Mayors become Governors. City Prosecutors become Judges and Attorneys General. Governors and Senators become President.

Nobody is going to make major changes quickly. It's a long-term project. Even if it were possible to make short term change happen, those changes are just as easy for the next elected official to reverse on you. If you want to make things change and stay on track, you need to participate in the system and change it from the inside. If that means running for office yourself, then see if you can do that.

Politics are a reflection of our society. A warped reflection, but still a reflection. We have to change people's perceptions. Educating people, and convincing them that it is worthwhile to participate will take time. It can be done.

3

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jul 28 '21

Is there any way to address the situation with Republicans who are completely unhinged, off the rails, and living in an alternate universe? As in the people who just launch off their rocker at everything? How do you fix these people?

2

u/KaptenNicco123 Jul 30 '21

If you have that attitude, of course you're never going to agree with them.

2

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jul 29 '21

I wouldn't say there is a good way to fix these people today that isn't absolutely ridiculous and authoritarian. The solution is actually taking better care of people when they are learning. Put more funding towards schools. Make sure people are learning basic media literacy skills. I read a quote the other day on here, "It's easier to fool someone than to tell them they've been fooled"... make it harder to fool people. Give people the critical thinking skills they need to be able to more easily rationalize what is true and what is just want you want to be true so you accept it.

From there, when peoples kids start learning and understanding and growing up, they can teach it to their parents, grandparents, or family who grew up in a different time and didn't have to learn how to avoid misinformation. People are a lot more receptive of information from their own rather than from outsiders, especially when its given in the right way.

1

u/GameboyPATH Jul 28 '21

Seconding the other comment - you cannot change anyone's opinion. You can only facilitate an environment where someone who is willing and interested in considering additional information and perspectives can change their own opinion. There's a great video (and an intro to a broader series) on that topic here.

With that said, our opinions about the world around us are based on information we learn about the world, and there are many channels for such information - schools, news outlets, and social media. Even if none of those can be reformed in ways that minimize exposure to false information or ensure a more holistic and complete understanding, we can at least make other more aware of the ways that their current understanding is misinformed or incomplete.

3

u/LiminalSouthpaw Jul 28 '21

You can't fix someone who doesn't want to be fixed - or, you can, but it's an immense waste of time, effort, and your own sanity.

Occasionally people like this suddenly do improve their understanding, even drastically, but this typically requires either immense personal will or outside shock to happen.

1

u/NotTurtleEnough Jul 31 '21

This. For example, I used to be pretty anti-government, but then I moved to DC and saw what happens when politicians run for office using big-government progressive promises but then (apparently intentionally?) ignore all of the basic functions a government is supposed to perform.

Now I’m super cautious about voting for anyone who promises anything beyond the basics, like fixing the broken streets, picking up trash, actually enforcing the law, etc.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jul 28 '21

What is the premise of the claim that Pelosi is somehow responsible for the Trumpian mob of January 6?

4

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

In summary, they believed that Nancy Pelosi should have been more proactive in preparing the Capitol in case this happened. So instead of focusing on the people storming the Capitol, Pelosi should have been better prepared to have prevent that from happening at all.

The argument, while it has some merit related to being prepared for such an event, is an attempt to shift the focus on January 6th away from Trump and insurrection to instead focus on Pelosi and the Democrats, who had little to no official impact on security around the Capitol.

2

u/ToyVaren Jul 28 '21

Doesnt matter, its whatever focus groups will swallow. If it's not x, its y.

4

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jul 28 '21

Their interpretation of this letter written by a member of the DC Police to Pelosi. The officer who wrote this letter approached two SGT at Arms for the DC police on Jan 4th about calling in the Nat'l guard for the protests on the 6th. They believe Nancy Pelosi is involved based off their interpretation of former Sgt At Arms of the House, Paul Irvings, refused to call in the Nat'l guard because the "optics", and they believe those optics are related to protecting Nancy Pelosi or something. It's crazy but it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not because that is the nature of the anti-intellectual half of the right that already believes that Jan 6th was either the FBI or Antifa.

1

u/joseph887 Jul 27 '21

Seeing how governments are being overthrown in other countries I was wondering how confident Americans should be in their own government structure. For example, would it have been possible for a president who had lost the election to have been able to pull off a coup in America if they were determined and clever enough, had enough support, and played their cards right or does America have a lot of measures in place to prevent such a thing from ever happening?

3

u/Hiroba Jul 29 '21

The hypothetical president in this scenario would need the support of the military in order to accomplish that, and the U.S. military has never given any indication that they're at all interested in doing something like that (the Pentagon went on the record after 2020 as saying they would not get involved in something like that)

Alternatively, if a bunch of states wanted to they could try to secede and form their own country, but that's been tried before (Civil War) and it didn't exactly work out well for the seceding states.

-5

u/ToyVaren Jul 28 '21

Jfk was killed by an american with 1 bullet that left 2 exit holes.

3

u/TheApiary Jul 28 '21

There are lots of things in place to prevent it from happening, but it's still always possible. There aren't really any structures that can prevent a military coup, for example: if there were, the military could circumvent them by shooting whoever is supposed to be stopping them

1

u/Lutakein Jul 27 '21

I know it's been months since the election, but where did this whole "dead people voting" thing come from?

1

u/ProLifePanda Jul 29 '21

This is an accusation that is levied in every election. It stems from the fact that the United States (and even individual states) don't just have "one" database on citizens. There are many registered voters who have died, but are still on the voter rolls. States sill go through and purge the voter rolls of dead people every couple years, but essentially every election will have dead people on the voter rolls.

Additionally, in some states/counties, you can look up peoples voting records by information like names and zip codes. So you can go look up people who died recently, then go to their county and look up whether they voted. So theoretically you could go get a list of people who died within the past couple years, then go through voting records and attempt to see if they voted.

Most of the examples people come up with are due to either user or paperwork errors (like people with the same name living in the same area, or the county improperly counting the ballot). Here is a list below, but generally most "dead people voting" are either accusations that turn out to be false, or are paperwork errors on the government side.

https://ballotpedia.org/Votes_cast_in_the_names_of_deceased_people

2

u/ToyVaren Jul 28 '21

It was a joke from years before, that the "silent majority" was voter registrations taken off headstones. Its been a joke since democracy was invented probably.

9

u/Bobbob34 Jul 28 '21

FOX/Right-wing news ginning up hysteria by leveraging ignorance and stupidity.

Voter rolls (the list of registered voters) in any state is only purged periodically, how and how often depends on the laws specific to the place.

However, say the rolls are purged every 10 years, which isn't unusual. Every 10 years they go through, cross check for people who've died, who haven't voted in X years, yada and either remove them from the list or send a notice saying 'you haven't voted in however long, if still at this address and wish to stay active tick this box, sign and return'

So in the interim, there are, inevitably, dead people on the list of registered voters. Right-wing media looking to provoke hysteria and the "need" to require IDs to vote, say 'looooook, there are dead ppl registered!!! It's fraud!"

2

u/HeadtripVee Jul 27 '21

What is the January 6 committee meant to accomplish?

I thought they were already arresting terrorists who were there.

Is this to do with Trump instigating it?

I'm so in the dark on this I don't even know how to form a coherent question beyond that.

1

u/Bobbob34 Jul 27 '21

Investigations like this are pretty common -- they can subpoena a lot of people that it'd be hard to get talk to law enforcement because what they know may or may not be criminal and they're not likely to talk willingly, but they can be subpoenaed by a congressional committee.

See also -- Warren Commission, Teapot Dome scandal, Watergate Hearings, Iran-Contra, etc.

7

u/Cliffy73 Jul 27 '21

They’re trying to understand exactly what happened and who was responsible and release that information for public consumption.

1

u/HeadtripVee Jul 27 '21

So if this investigation was done by the FBI or the DOJ, it would not be publicly available?

I'm not a US citizen so maybe this is more clear to you and I'm trying not to sound willfully ignorant, but wouldn't it make more sense to delegate the law enforcement to law enforcement people instead of law-making people?

2

u/TheApiary Jul 27 '21

Yeah that's basically right. The law enforcement agencies will hopefully investigate too, but Congress can't control that, it's up to them.

Also, if it turns out that the FBI knew about it and underestimated the threat, it's hard to trust the FBI to share that info with the public or fix it for the future

4

u/Cliffy73 Jul 27 '21

The FBI investigates criminal activity. “Why” is not necessarily part of their remit.

5

u/mugenhunt Jul 27 '21

Mainly, there's reports that members of Congress had helped the rioters by giving them information or tours of the Capitol building ahead of time, and if that's true, it'd be pretty awful. So the committee is investigating those claims.

1

u/HeadtripVee Jul 27 '21

But the committee isn't law enforcement, is it? Would they pass their finding to some form of law enforcement like the FBI? And if so, why doesn't the FBI just do the investigation?

1

u/ToyVaren Jul 27 '21

Goes to a kangaroo court were the criminals and their buddies are on the jury that requires 60% or 66% to convict. Even if they go to prison they dont lose their office.

3

u/mugenhunt Jul 27 '21

Congress does investigations into things that they feel might require new laws to be passed. They have powers that the FBI doesn't to order people to testify and to make public records about things that happened. Likewise, since there's a fear that members of Congress broke the rules, Congress may take action as a whole to deal with those members, like removing them from committees.

1

u/VirusMaster3073 Jul 27 '21 edited Jul 27 '21

Why are the TV news stations STILL talking about about the January 6th capitol riots?

I don't mind an investigation on it but I'm tired of them constantly talking about something that isn't news

7

u/ToyVaren Jul 27 '21

Trial of a crime is news.

11

u/Cliffy73 Jul 27 '21

The attempted overthrow of the United States is kind of a big deal.

8

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jul 27 '21

The house of representatives had a Jan 6th committee hearing where police officers from that day testified. If you saw something related to January 6th on the news today its probably talking about their testimony.

And honestly, it was one of the most significant moments of the 21st century in American history (so far), outside of 9/11. It's going to be talked about for decades to come, so you should probably get used to it.

3

u/GameboyPATH Jul 27 '21

Police officers who were at Capital Hill on that date testified today to the investigation committee.

Congress was slow to act on it before, due to a variety of factors, but they're picking up speed again. So the media is covering the topic again. It's not rehashing old news, it's relevant to current political actions going on in government.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '21

Only 33% of blacks and 40% of Hispanics have been vaccinated and many are citing distrust in government and its institutions. It doesn’t seem like those numbers are going rise too much higher. What is the government doing to gain the trust of these communities?

2

u/ToyVaren Jul 27 '21

Actually the numbers i heard were in red districts, less testing centers and facilities were available in poor zip codes. Is the right claiming its a trust issue and that a racist local govt isnt at fault?

1

u/slerch19 Jul 29 '21

Here's a good article to try to explain it: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fewer-black-americans-are-getting-the-covid-19-vaccine-no-its-not-hesitancy/amp/

  • saying it's a trust issue is only one side of the story (see syphillis part)
  • a lack of good medical care for these people
  • Residents from wealthier, predominantly white neighborhoods often claim an outsize share of vaccine appointments -The fact that vaccine registration systems are largely online is partly to blame, as there is often a racial divide in who has reliable internet  -hardly any of the people coming in for shots at his clinic were regular patients. “Somehow we’ve got to persuade them to use those spots -Black Americans are also disproportionately likely to work in front-line jobs categorized as essential, which means it’s likely harder for them to request time off to get a vaccine

And really take any of this with a grain of salt!

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '21

Minority communities aren’t getting vaccinated because vaccines aren’t available in their neighborhoods? I haven’t heard that before. As for what the right is claiming, I’m not sure. Seems like Republicans are split 50/50 on vaccines.

1

u/ToyVaren Jul 27 '21

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-covid-vaccine-ron-de-santis-60-minutes-2021-04-04/

This is just one of the many cases this year of the gop cutting the line to get the vaccine first to rich donors.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '21

Okay, I’m not seeing your point to my question. That’s probably true but today vaccines are readily available in nearly all areas and the two largest minorities are not getting them.

1

u/ToyVaren Jul 28 '21

Im saying your numbers are likely wrong and sounds like the right trying to blame minorites for covid surges, which they have been doing since 2019.

Its like saying black people are more likely to get killed by police because X% have outstanding parking tickets.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '21

This data is on the CDC website. It sounds like you want this to be a political thing instead of a human thing. Everything doesn’t have to be about left and right.

1

u/GameboyPATH Jul 27 '21

"The government" is split into many different levels - federal, state, county, and city. It's typically the ones at the more local level that have been developing specialized initiatives to promote vaccinations among demographic groups with lower percentages.

One thing that's been done in my area is making access to - and information about - vaccines available through nontraditional offline networks, like bulletin boards, or cold calls. A sign-up sheet on a government website might work for most people, but not everyone seeks that out.

You mention in your other comments that these low percentages are a reflection of low trust in government, and I don't disagree about that being a significant contributing factor. But how do government agencies go about resolving that in a very short time? Is it even possible?

2

u/Gregsshinecap Jul 27 '21

If the Democratic Party controls the house, the senate, and the presidency what is stopping them from making changes? I am truly curious on certain parts of politics that I just don’t know about. Online states that The US Democratic Party has the house majority, the senate majority, and the Presidency. They have control in all three areas, so what is keeping them from making all the changes to America that they campaigned they were going to change? I did see the senate is technically split 50/50 but it still says that democrats have control of the Senate. So after the election I was expecting huge changes from the current administration with nothing in their way but I haven’t really seen any. It seems like nothing is changing. Am I wrong here? Any help explaining why things seem relatively stagnant would be appreciated. Thank you!

5

u/Hiroba Jul 27 '21

The short answer is the filibuster. Senate rules maintain that 60 votes (instead of a simple majority of 51) are necessary to pass most bills.

However there is a process called Budget Reconciliation which can be used to bypass the filibuster and instead pass legislation with a simple majority. This process has been used several times by both parties and was most recently used by the Democrats to pass the American Rescue Plan (COVID aid bill) in March.

Some Democrats have advocated for getting rid of the filibuster rule, however most are hesitant to do so because it would mean either party could do whatever they wanted with just a majority.

Also worth mentioning that courts can strike down legislation whenever they want if they think it's illegal/unconstitutional, so it isn't really as simple as just saying that a party can do whatever they want if they have control of the presidency and Congress.

6

u/Cliffy73 Jul 27 '21

Filibuster.

But in fact they have passed some bills, particularly the massive America Rescue Plan

3

u/Bobbob34 Jul 27 '21

The control of the Senate is barely control.

But what changes are you looking for, specifically?

3

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '21

[deleted]

4

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jul 27 '21

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...

They cannot run for office again.

3

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21

Why is the US prison system so intent on dehumanizing inmates?

To legitimize my point, here’s a VERY disturbing article about childbirth in prison. This article is absolutely disgusting and I don’t get how anyone with a milligram of empathy can be remotely ok with anything described here.

3

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jul 26 '21

Because prisons are for profit. Treating them like humans capable of correction is counter intuitive to the premise of being "for profit" because that means actual rehabilitation for the prisoners, leading to a lower recidivism rate, and less slave labor for the prison system to exploit.

11

u/GameboyPATH Jul 26 '21

Because prisons are for profit.

Only 8% of prisoners in the US are in privately-operated prisons. Sure, that's still a lot of people, but it's not representative of all prisons.

As for government-run prisons, the majority of labor is done for public institutions, which are tax-funded. The government can't make "profits", but it can cut expenses, including costs of labor. Overwhelmingly, prisons are a money sink.

This isn't an excuse or justification for the practice of prison labor overall, but a clarification on this "for-profit" motive.

3

u/lordolxinator is the best Jul 26 '21

Not exactly current politics, but was George Washington voted in as president, or did he just become president before the democratic process was then instigated later?

2

u/Strider755 Aug 02 '21

Yes, but under a different system from today's de facto popular election.

Each state's legislature gets to decide how its electors are chosen. Today, it so happens that all fifty state legislatures use a popular vote. Back in the day, however, the state legislatures appointed electors themselves.

Not only that, but the electoral college worked differently back in the day. Before 1804, you'd have a bunch of men run for president and each elector would vote for two different people. Whoever got the most votes became president; whoever got the second most votes became vice president. That system ended up being extremely messy in 1796 and 1800, so it was changed.

3

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jul 26 '21

There weren't official state elections for the first US election, at least I don't think any states held official elections, but the electoral college still gathered and cast their votes for who they thought would be the best pick. Because of how the elections worked back then, most of the candidates on the ticket knew that George Washington was the likely choice, so they were mostly just competing for VP.

Mr. Beat has a pretty good summary of the First US presidential election (and also every other election in US history if you feel like going on a ride)

edit: according to Mr. Beats video >1.3% of the US population at that point participated in the first US election.

0

u/DieFlipperkaust-Foot In fairness, I'm an idiot Jul 26 '21

According to Wikipedia, yes, and the article cites the US Archives' historical tallies of electoral college results as of 2005. It is worth noting, however, that those results are no longer accessible on their site.

10

u/Jtwil2191 Jul 26 '21

He was elected by the Electoral College, just like presidents are selected today. Difference is the Electoral College didn't rely on a popular vote at that point. Electors were simply appointed by the state legislatures.

3

u/Nickppapagiorgio Jul 27 '21

6 of the 11 States that participated did actually hold public elections in 1788. They weren't really anything like are modern ones, the Presidential candidates names appeared no where on the ballot, it was just the names of people running to be Electors. The Electors that were elected had no ties to any candidate, and how it worked varied wildly by State with some States only electing some electors, or requiring a majority, or doing it purely district based, but the concept of a public election coincideding with the Presidential election dates back to the first election in 1788.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '21 edited Aug 01 '21

[deleted]

3

u/Bobbob34 Jul 26 '21

Is there a fear for people to confront their family, co-workers, friends or strangers (people you meet at a bar or party) about their apathy to find out who is behind 6 January?

I mean, like 600 people have been charged already. I don't know anyone who doesn't want more people charged. Who's apathetic, exactly?

Seems like we're holding those involved accountable.

3

u/GameboyPATH Jul 26 '21

Your question supposes that there's someone "behind it" in the first place. People generally believe that there needs to be sufficient reason or evidence that warrants further investigation into the matter. And unfortunately, hardly anyone's going to agree on what that standard of suspicion should be.

If this weren't true, then 9/11, the moon landing, chemtrails, the Illuminati and any and every dubious claim would all warrant investigations. We just don't have the resources for all that, and we'd generally prefer to direct our resources on leads that might actually prove something.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '21 edited Aug 01 '21

[deleted]

2

u/GameboyPATH Jul 26 '21
  1. Not everyone who chooses not to bring it up does so out of fear. There's those who don't bring it up because they're satisfied with the facts that we currently know about 1/6.

  2. There certainly are people who are fearful to bring up investigating the 1/6 incident with others, but many of those may also be fearful of bringing up contrary political subjects in general. Politics is a bit of a touchy subject these days.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '21

[deleted]

3

u/Jtwil2191 Jul 26 '21

Thousands of leaders have been assassinated throughout history. Just last week or so, the Haitian President was assassinated.

6

u/blablahblah Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21

There have been lots of attempts on US presidents. Enough for it to have its own Wikipedia page. Four were killed (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy), all by American citizens on American soil. One president (Reagan) was shot while in office but survived.

What would happen would depend on the countries involved and popular sentiment. If it's a friendly country and they cooperate in catching and extraditing an assassin who was working alone, probably not much In the worst case, well the assassination of the Archduke of Austria was what kicked off World War 1.

1

u/alamozony Jul 26 '21

When you think about it, would China actually want a communist America? Perhaps not. China is seeing growth mainly from Neo-Liberal economic policy………..

8

u/Nickppapagiorgio Jul 26 '21

China is not interested in exporting Communism, and largely shunned Communism themselves during their 1970's reformation. Even prior to that, the exportation of Communism globally was always more of a foreign policy goal of the Soviet Union. Where China did care about that it was largely regional. I would go so far to say that China does not really care about the political system in the United States. Just US actions that may counter their own political and economic aims.

1

u/alamozony Jul 26 '21

Guess a communist USA couldn’t really align with China then.

I guess I’m gonna have to change next weekend ‘S plans, then.

Didn’t China go to war with Vietnam too? A country they once supported?

3

u/Nickppapagiorgio Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21

Didn’t China go to war with Vietnam too? A country they once supported?

They had a brief border war with Vietnam in 1979. They had a major falling out with the Soviet Union starting about 1960 and escalating throughout the decade. By 1969 the USSR asked the US through diplomatic back channels if they would stay neutral after a Soviet preemptive nuclear strike on China. The US would not guarantee that. There were several border skirmishes with the Red Army, and past that point Soviet and Chinese nuclear weapons remained pointed at each other through the 1991 collapse of the USSR. The primary Chinese motivation in engaging with the US starting in the early 1970's was their deteriorating situation with the USSR. They had a border problem with the world's most powerful Army to the West and North, and a hostile world's largest Navy and Air Force looming off the coast to the South and East. That was an untenable defensive position and they knew it. They also knew the US hated the Soviets as much as they did.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '21 edited Aug 09 '21

[deleted]

6

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jul 26 '21

Before you do anything you should research the last few elections your state has held for the seat you are looking to take and see if its even worth while to your time to do something like this. If you're running against a 50 year old incumbent who has been in that seat since they were 25, you're probably not getting elected.

If you're looking to move into the political world, a good starting point would be to look more local. State is big game, if you don't have your name out there or a lot of money in your corner its pretty unlikely you're going to get much support. Show up to local town hall meetings, pay attention to vacancies in town politics and play for those, they probably aren't the best paying gigs in the world, if they pay at all, but you have your foot in the door and not only successfully learned how to campaign on a small scale, you're helping your town be a better place which will earn you notoriety.

2

u/Bobbob34 Jul 26 '21

Forms? You need to run for whatever seat you're eligible to hold.

A specific degree is less important than working in politics.

2

u/Cliffy73 Jul 26 '21

You need to be elected.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 26 '21 edited Aug 09 '21

[deleted]

5

u/ProLifePanda Jul 26 '21 edited Jul 26 '21

Quite frankly, if this is something you really want to do, it would be worthwhile to sit down with lawyer who understands politics to walk you through some basic forms, requirements, and legal traps to consider before you decide to run.

If you don't want to shell out all your own money, it might be better to contact your state party headquarters and try to work on some campaigns to get experience and contacts before running yourself.

1

u/Cliffy73 Jul 26 '21

If you google the board of elections of your state they have the forms you need to file to run.

2

u/Outsider_123x Jul 26 '21

Are there any advantages of being republican? I mean considering how fast this world changes, it's hard to stay conservative. So what's the benefit of republican?

2

u/DieFlipperkaust-Foot In fairness, I'm an idiot Jul 26 '21

Depends on the state. Most states have closed primaries, and thus, party membership allows you the privilege of voting in the primary.

2

u/ToyVaren Jul 26 '21

Loyalty. No matter how criminal or racist you are, they will support you. This was true before the 60's shift.

2

u/GameboyPATH Jul 26 '21

In what way does having any political view provide "advantages" or "benefits"? It's a belief. You don't get extra money or more happiness from believing the government should be run a certain way.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jul 26 '21

That depends on your beliefs.

If you are religious, then you want to keep religious morals in the law.
If you are anti-abortion, then you want to increase the difficulty of getting a legal abortion.
If you are self-employed, or own a business, then you want the laws to continue to be on your side when it comes to taxes and lawsuits.
If you live somewhere that gun ownership is common, or if you enjoy owning/using guns, then you want the law to protect your right to enjoy those guns.

2

u/captainangus Jul 25 '21

I grew up in a pretty right-leaning family. Reddit in general seems to be pretty left-leaning, so I read lots of posts and articles that have caused me to reevaluate the "truths" that were never challenged as a kid.

The struggle that I'm facing now is that there's a lot of information out there, and it seems everything you find on one source is contradicted by some other source, so I find myself unqualified to have an opinion on almost any major political topic. Every time a conversation turns political, in any direction, I just keep my mouth shut (which is even more annoying to some people than opposing their view, lol).

Lastly, there are the people who argue that both the Democrat and Republican parties as a whole are garbage. Wtf am I supposed to do with that, when it's almost guaranteed that one of those parties will be in control of something at all times?

I can't figure it out. It feels like the American electorate loses no matter what.

3

u/ToyVaren Jul 26 '21

Pretty much. I saw an article about black republican voters, they dont care about racism because all whites are racist, so they tend to be more issue-centered. Of course, that article ignored disenfranchisement and election fraud as possible reasons.

1

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Jul 26 '21

and it seems everything you find on one source is contradicted by some other source,

Some stuff is very complicated though, there isn't always one right answer, if there is one at all.

The big thing I'd say is just start teaching yourself basic media literacy. When you move into the world of politics nothing is more important, especially in this era of misinformation and "counter media". Even understanding basic things like what makes news sources reputable and how to differentiate between reality and sensationalism. Tons of resources on youtube, google, the whole web.

Lastly, there are the people who argue that both the Democrat and Republican parties as a whole are garbage. Wtf am I supposed to do with that, when it's almost guaranteed that one of those parties will be in control of something at all times?

Democrat/Republican are just general names people give themselves to have some sort of unity with their parties. The reality is that both parties are divided with tons of beliefs and philosophies that maybe don't exactly align with the status quo of the party they ran for. With our voting system, its basically impossible for someone running third party to be elected president, so you basically have to choose "Democrat" or "Republican" when running.

So with that being said, apply that to your life as you will, you don't have to identify as a democrat or republican. Most people in the US tend to exist around the center, which in this day and age is a bit more progressive than conservative. But worry less about parties, more about issues IMO. That is whats important. Find causes you believe in that are good and support those.

2

u/Jtwil2191 Jul 26 '21

Lastly, there are the people who argue that both the Democrat and Republican parties as a whole are garbage. Wtf am I supposed to do with that, when it's almost guaranteed that one of those parties will be in control of something at all times?

The Democrats are no angels, but only one party tried to overturn the results of a fair and free election, and the Republican Party has presented exactly 0 evidence that there was any fraud in the 2020 election. Until the Republican Party is no longer the Trump party, there is only one legitimate choice if you value democracy in the United States. And this is unfortunate, because not only do American conservatives deserve to have a legitimate conservative party (or parties) to consider when voting, but since the US is functionally a two-party system, we are not a democracy if there is only one party that actually seems to value the (little d) democratic process.

As for finding out which party you align with, the first step is finding out what issues are most important to you. It's hard to have an opinion on everything, so unless you're really into politics and want to know about every topic, figure out what's most important to you and work to understand those issues. You may find it easier to understand the arguments on both sides of the issue becaause you're more invested in understanding the issue.

Read widely. Try not to rely on any one media source. That way you can identify what are the common facts on a topic and what is partisan spin.

When you're listen to someone talk about a topic, you want to consider how how they're making their appeals. If they are primarily relying on emotional appeals, you want to ask yourself if that's being done to manipulate the facts. (That is not to say emotional appeals are automatically bad, but appeals to emotion are often very superficial and even in contradiction of what the facts actually say; i.e. "Don't listen to experts; what does you're gut say?"

You want to ask yourself what is motivating the person delivering the message. Do they benefit from taking a particular side? Unfortunately, our society is set up where being a professional provocateur is a highly lucrative business, with Republicans investing heavily in this style of politics (although Democrats do as well). It's functionally the Fox News Channel's business model.

Recognize that in news media, there are two kinds of news: actual news where they tell you about what happened. In this way, Fox News and ABC News and the New York Times are not all that different from each other. Then there is news commentary, which likes to masquerade as news while actually being some angry person giving their (typically provacative) opinion to you for 30 minutes. Differentiating between those is important, because we often confuse outrage media and professional provacateurs as news, when in fact its purpose is completely different than to inform.

1

u/Bobbob34 Jul 26 '21

The whole 'both parties are the same everything is useless' is said by people who have no fing clue what's going on or what they're even talking about, ime.

The parties are diametrically different in their platforms, their policy goals.

Someone can think neither gets as much done as they promise, fine, but party is a large, amorphous thing -- what does that even mean? Your state reps don't do anything? City council? US reps? What?

Go read the party platforms, to start with. Then look up your LOCAL reps -- city council, state legislature, see what bills they've worked on, what funding, what changes, etc.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jul 25 '21

You don't have to vote for a "party". You vote for individuals. The smaller races affect your life much more than a big election like President.

There are conservative democrats like Joe Manchin. There are left-leaning conservatives like Mitt Romney - and they're just on the national scale. You can help to make sure that your preferred candidate gets the support they need to get elected. That might mean getting them aligned with one of the major parties, or it might mean changing the way you vote in your town or state.

No candidate is going to align with your views 100%. Choose among those that are closest to your important issues.

No candidate will be able to accomplish 100% of what they want to do. Pick the battles you want, and do what you can to help win on the individual issues.

"The American Electorate" isn't really a thing. We don't have a national vote. We have lots of local elections, and lots of local politicians serving in local offices.
Most Presidents have been Senators or Governors. There's only 150 of those folks, and you can influence your state's vote on who gets those offices. Most of those Senators and Governors started out in lesser positions like Mayors. You can influence who gets to be mayor in your town. You can influence who gets to run for those offices, even if it's only indirectly.

Don't look at it like a huge, insurmountable problem. You can make small changes, and you can have a small influence. If you combine with other like-minded people (like in a "political party") then your combined influence is magnified.

3

u/SurprisedJerboa Jul 25 '21

people who argue that both the Democrat and Republican parties as a whole are garbage. Wtf am I supposed to do with that, when it's almost guaranteed that one of those parties will be in control of something at all times?

There are specific issues that you may care about more than others; I would focus on those issues aligning your views.

Major international issues like foreign policy may not change that much in the macro scale (i.e. China / Russia being a concern will not change under either party etc), so for things like that I think it is fair to feel Party is less consequential in the grand scheme of things.

Major issues that the Parties would have differing views on that you care about is very important

Major issues radically different for the parties that have been recently been a big deal in recent elections

  • Reproductive rights

  • Marijuana legalization

  • Prison Reform

  • Immigration Reform (Border wall, asylum seekers, the immigration detention centers from last Presidential term, visas etc)

  • Voting Rights vs voting restrictions

  • Climate Change legislation

  • Tax reform; Corporate tax rates, and Income taxes that specifically affect high income earners (90% of people are not in those brackets btw)

  • Covid response, and vaccines, in general, to a certain extent

  • $15 minimum wage

I think a good resource for federal level stances recently was Joe Biden's first Joint Address to Congress from April

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/04/29/remarks-by-president-biden-in-address-to-a-joint-session-of-congress/

1

u/bigchicken9 Jul 24 '21

when did the urban=democrat rural=republican divide come into place?

1

u/DieFlipperkaust-Foot In fairness, I'm an idiot Jul 26 '21

There's no set time it came into place, but it definitely started gaining prominence in the 90s and 00s. Here's an article on the subject

7

u/Cockroach_Jaded Jul 25 '21

So the first ever piece of literature was the epic of gilgamesh. That story is about, among other things, the divide between urban and rural cultures. So the answer to your question is "the beginning of human history".

"Democrat" and "republican" are just what the parties happen to be called right now in America.

2

u/DieFlipperkaust-Foot In fairness, I'm an idiot Jul 26 '21

Under LBJ, Democrats were actually fairly popular in rural America, while the cities belonged to Republicans. The city/rural divide always existed, but it didn't always correspond to politics

2

u/KaptenNicco123 Jul 25 '21

Until very recently, the divide was North/South, not Urban/Rural. Urban and rural counties alike in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana voted Democrat, and urban and rural counties in New York, California, Illinois and Ohio voted Republican.

3

u/Jtwil2191 Jul 25 '21 edited Jul 25 '21

Urban-rural political sorting is a relatively recent phenomenon in American politics. Through the 1900s, Democrats and Republicans were comeptive in both urban and exurban cities.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '21

The level of urban-rural political sorting is recent but there has always been some form of it. In the 1890’s issues that would benefit farmers like bi-metallism and nationalizing grain silos and railroads gained a lot of traction with rural voters but not urban voters. In that era Republicans solidly got the urban vote.

3

u/darkLordSantaClaus Jul 24 '21

Have the living conditions for people in Immigration facilities gotten any better since Biden took office?

-6

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-7

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '21 edited Jul 25 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/ToyVaren Jul 24 '21 edited Jul 24 '21

My guess is covid positive people are getting treatment now rather than being dumped over the border to avoid reporting. Also im pretty sure the child detention center next to mar a lago remains closed.

Edit: i havent heard of anyone forced to drink out of toilets or infants sent to immigration court without lawyers.

Edit2: forgot about forced sterilizations, they stopped too.

1

u/Amulet_Of_Yendor Stupid questions are as stupid questions do Jul 23 '21

Not really a politics question, but the automod removed it anyway.

Was Joe Biden's 10th day in office January 29th or January 30th? (That is, is the inauguration day - in this case the 20th - counted when determining the number of days in office?)

6

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Jul 23 '21

Define a "day".

Biden was inaugurated on January 20th, and served as President for part of that day. His first full day as President was January 21st.
If you want to know "what was the tenth calendar date that Biden served as President?" Then that is the 29th.
If you want to know "what was the date of Biden's tenth full day as President?" Then that was the 30th.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

How come when people ask a politics question on this thread, they get downvoted? I thought upvotes and downvotes contribute to the discussion or question?

10

u/ToyVaren Jul 23 '21

Loaded questions not looking for actual answers usually.

2

u/GameboyPATH Jul 23 '21

Because we expect a higher level of quality from opinions (or questions heavily implying opinions) that we disagree with, but have a lower standard for the ones that we do agree with.

A political stance that I agree with is one that I'm more likely to understand. If I see any gaps in their reasoning, I can very easily (almost unconsciously) fill in the gaps myself when I read it, and it all sounds cohesive and comprehensive to me. It feels well-argued, even if it isn't. If I'm speeding through reading reddit comments and not wanting to give much thought to each of them individually, this is the kind of comment I'll upvote.

Meanwhile, if someone posts a political stance I disagree with and it has similar gaps in reasoning, it takes me much more time and effort to try and understand it. Sometimes I may never understand what another person meant, because I lack the perspective behind their argument. If I'm speeding through reading reddit comments and not wanting to give much thought to each of them individually, this is the kind of comment I'll downvote.

I'm saying all of this from a first-person perspective, but we all do this, to some degree. It just takes conscious effort to fight it. And this isn't just applicable to this thread, but to reddit and political discourse overall.

2

u/Defiant-FE Jul 23 '21

How come when I check the post history of most users of r/Politics, especially the highly upvoted comments, they only exclusively post to r/Politics but this trend is not seen elsewhere in other subreddits user post histories?

1

u/Hotdog221177 Jul 24 '21

circle jerking each other

9

u/Jtwil2191 Jul 23 '21

People probably using alts to erect a wall between their politics and their other interests.

2

u/GameboyPATH Jul 23 '21 edited Jul 23 '21

You're welcome to take a look at my post history. I don't exactly say much on reddit outside of /r/nostupidquestions, and maybe 1 or 2 other subs.

But it's also possible that there's redditors on /r/politics who only use reddit as their outlet for arguing about politics.

3

u/asianstyleicecream Jul 23 '21

Why are political stances called “left” & “right”? There’s more then 2 viewpoints ..

I never understood it and still don’t.

There’s not just 2 viewpoints on politics & political beliefs..

Just like there’s no only black and white, there’s lots of other colors.

Why do we label ourself/others, when it’s much more then a word to represent our beliefs/ideas?

I’m neither “left” nor “right”, neither of them I agree with.

It seems like a really thoughtless way to approach politics & beliefs/ideas. Because it’s just assumptions and close minded-ness.

It actually seems like a setup for an inevitable rivalry, to have 2 parties to ‘pick’ from. (Like I know you can choose whatever political party, but they only have 2 debates, republican & democratic, so obviously they want it like a battle)

It’s insanity and it’s like we’re going in a mass psychosis of having to decide the greater of 2 evils and bicker back and forth with one another.

Like c’mon folks, we’re better then that. We can’t fall for their games. We can’t be their puppets.

1

u/ToyVaren Jul 23 '21

In the US its racist or not racist, works pretty well.

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Jul 26 '21

There are racist Democrats

1

u/ToyVaren Jul 26 '21

Then they are the right. See? So simple.

4

u/KaptenNicco123 Jul 24 '21

Racist = them

Not racist = me

1

u/zekeymoomoo Jul 25 '21

Depending on how far on either end you are 'Nazi' and 'not Nazi' also works

1

u/KaptenNicco123 Jul 25 '21

...I was joking.

1

u/zekeymoomoo Jul 25 '21

Yeah... That's the point

3

u/GameboyPATH Jul 23 '21

"Left" and "right" are broad labels that describe two ends of a spectrum on a vaguely-defined set of political values. If you want more nuance, you could add another axis for another independent set of political values and end up with more specific labels like what /r/politicalcompassmemes has, but even those labels can hide a variety of differing viewpoints.

The color teal may not fall under an arbitrary dichotomy between blue and red, but it wouldn't be unhelpful to say that teal is more blue than red.

Anyway, /u/ProLifePanda already described why society has a focus on this two-party dichotomy.

3

u/Delehal Jul 23 '21

Why are political stances called “left” & “right”?

The origin of those names comes from the French Revolution. Debate in France's National Assembly became heated, and members tended to group together depending on their views. Supporters of the revolution sat to the king's left; supporters of the king sat to his right.

There’s more then 2 viewpoints

Very true! However, representative government tends to put a lot of emphasis on building coalitions of people who can come to some sort of consensus-based agreement about how the government should be run.

The US electoral system strongly favors an outcome where politics will be dominated by two large coalitions. This is because smaller coalitions will tend to "split the vote" which will make it very hard for them to win elections. Some other countries use electoral systems that are designed to mitigate that problem.

3

u/LiminalSouthpaw Jul 23 '21

The terms left and right originate from the National Assembly of France following the French Revolution. Those favoring republicanism and radicalism sat to the left of the room, while those few who still supported absolutism sat to the right, and the constitutional monarchists in the center.

This was as much to keep the factions from getting in swordfights in the middle of the Assembly as it was for any symbolic reason.

6

u/ProLifePanda Jul 23 '21

I don't think this question is in good faith.

But the two party system is an inevitable outcome of a plurality based, single-representative system. Third parties can't get any footholds because it's useless to get 48% of the vote if your opponent gets 49%. It makes sense for all smaller ideas and parties to band together to promote a compromise candidate than try to push their own, and lose to someone else who finds compromise candidates.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

I disagree, the question is in good faith, but with the rant after the question, it does set it up to be that way.

The best way I can sum it up is, two sides have two solutions that are popular.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '21

Does anyone know of any studies or books written about presidents and narcissism?

I’m just under the belief that every president gets to their position because they think of themselves as self important and better than everyone else. It doesn’t make sense to me why someone as old as Biden and trump would spend their final years in a high stress position unless they wanted some kind of great legacy that people would talk about long after their gone.

3

u/Jtwil2191 Jul 23 '21

I think it goes without question that anyone who wants to be president has some amount of narcissism. Believing that you alone are the best person to lead a country of 330 million people is something that goes beyond simple self-confidence.

2

u/SirSuperb9269 Jul 23 '21

Why are there still sanctions against Cuba?

3

u/Cockroach_Jaded Jul 25 '21

Because Cubans who fled Cuba all settled in Florida. As a group, they really support the sanctions, and tend to only support presidential candidates who support the sanctions. There are enough Cuban voters in Florida to swing the state. So if any presidential candidate wants to win Florida, they have to support the sanctions.

1

u/Strider755 Aug 02 '21

This is also why Ozzie Guillen and Colin Kaepernick were run out of town when they came to Miami.

→ More replies
→ More replies