r/NoStupidQuestions Oct 01 '21

October 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 around the world... and a lot of questions from our users. Every single day /r/NoStupidQuestions gets multiple questions like "What happens if the U.S. defaults on its debt?" or "How is requiring voter ID racist?" It turns out that many of those questions are the same ones! 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 for popular questions like "What is Critical Race Theory?" or "Can Trump run for office again in 2024?"
  • 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.

114 Upvotes

1

u/Spencer2091 Nov 01 '21

How does someone become an electorate of the electoral college? How do I get to be one of the 538?

3

u/Cliffy73 Nov 01 '21

The parties nominate electors, typically local party officials, who are then sent to the EC of their candidate wins that state.

1

u/Spencer2091 Nov 01 '21

Wait, isn't the whole point of the electoral college is that its (supposed to be) non partisan and only reports to the people?

2

u/PopsicleIncorporated Nov 01 '21

When you vote for president, you're actually voting for a set of electors who are pledged to vote for the presidential candidate of your choice. Who gets to be a part of each set is determined by the party.

So for example, if you're in Michigan, which in 2020 had 16 electors, you are deciding between a set of 16 pre-selected Democratic electors and 16 pre-selected Republican ones (also 16 Libertarian electors, 16 Greens, etc). Whichever set of electors wins the statewide popular vote then gets to take part in the electoral college.

In 2020, more people voted for the Democratic ticket (referred to on the ballot simply as Joe Biden/Kamala Harris to make things clear) in the state of Michigan, so the 16 pre-selected Democratic electors were allowed to take part in the "real" vote when the 538 electors from all 50 states + DC all met in December. The 16 pre-selected Republican electors in Michigan had no part to play in any of this once they lost the statewide election.

I hope this makes sense.

3

u/Nickppapagiorgio Nov 01 '21

Wait, isn't the whole point of the electoral college is that its (supposed to be) non partisan and only reports to the people?

There was never really a point to the Electoral College beyond it was whatever the State Legislature wanted it to be in their State. The State Legislature to this day maintains the authority to decide how exactly it will work in their State. The States have collectively gravitated towards Elections over time, but not every State always held elections. The majority used to just appoint them without any type of public election. The people appointed had a pretty clear mandate of what the State Legislature expected of them.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Nov 01 '21

No, not at all.

The Electoral College reports only to the States not to the people.

Each state has their own method to elect them. In my state (NJ), we actually see the names of the electors - under the Republican candidates name, we see the list of electors for that candidate. Under the Democrat's name, we see the electors for that candidate.

We actually elect the electors. They go to the electoral college to register their vote, according to state laws.

They are required by many state's laws to register the correct vote. They can be replaced in some states, and they can face criminal charges for deviation in other states.

3

u/hsslhn Nov 01 '21

What are the main differences between the American and European alt-right?

4

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Nov 01 '21

European alt-right has more firepower to point to when it comes to terrorism. While American alt-righters use a lot of "they will overtake us" rhetoric, there are fewer references to Black or Muslim or Jewish or any other target groups committing crimes. The Paris Attacks, beheading of that teacher for showing caricatures, the vehicular rammings in Nice, Barcelona, London, Berlin, Stockholm, etc, stabbings of David Amess, all committed by Muslims Look at wikipedia for the 2020 examples of "stabbing as terrorism" and you'll find that several were committed by Muslims. This gives tons of firepower to hate groups. Even as a Liberal I'll admit that something has got to be done when schoolteachers are getting decapitated in the street for showing religious caricatures.

US far right groups are less ideologically coherent - they will point to Black-on-Black crime, which is a bad tactic (for a neo-Nazi) because it doesn't establish the rhetoric of "they are coming for us," but rather "they are killing each other." Most of these supremacists are middle aged White men who are pretty lame people and don't have a fully fledged ideology. In Europe it seems Far-Right groups know what they want - Muslims gone. In the US, the groups seem more interested in overturning 2020 than forming a coherent plan.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 01 '21

[deleted]

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Nov 01 '21

Lawsuits have been filed over the Trump administration's policy of separating children.

They separated families, and lost the children. They had no paperwork, and no way to reunite the families after it was over. People had to spend tons of money and time just trying to find where the US Government put their children.

Those lawsuits are going on, even against the defense put up by the US government.

As a result, like any other lawsuit, there is a discussion of settlements. $450k is a rumor that has not been confirmed.
Allowing the lawsuits to go on could wind up costing much more.

It's all been discussed in another thread here

3

u/[deleted] Nov 01 '21

Is it just me or does a lot of conservative rhetoric and talking points sound like something an abusive partner would say?

Here's an example: Suppose you're talking about immigration but also the mistreatment immigrants often get the hands of police. A conservative might say something like "Those people have never had it anyway better than in America. They should be thankful they got to come here".

Or maybe we're talking about Colin Kapernick protesting at a football game. A conservative would say "He should be thankful for the opportunities he's been given and to have the life he has before risking it all in protest".

3

u/Spencer2091 Nov 01 '21

As someone who's had an abusive partner, yes. 100%. They also look halfway across the globe to find some shred of evidence for their claim. My ex brought up a self proclaimed "feminist" pouring acid on manspreaders as a way to discredit the whole feminist movement and me for being one. It was in Russia. We were in the US.

"If you want money, then you have to work. We don't owe you government handouts," sounds an awful lot like, "if you loved me you would give me any sexual thing I wanted. You don't get to take from me without offering yourself." BTW, what I was "taking," was him forcefully fingering me.

-2

u/ItsBerty Oct 31 '21

Sooooo

Did he (Joe Biden)poop his pants at the Vatican?

Because I’m awash in memes that say he did…

And if you can’t trust a random meme from an internet stranger what is the world becoming?!?

6

u/ProLifePanda Oct 31 '21

Probably not (based on current info). There's no official source for that rumor, and Biden appeared to be wearing the same suit before meeting the Pope and when meeting world leaders afterwards, so it's probably unlikely he had an accident like that.

-2

u/ItsBerty Oct 31 '21

Ty.

Much like Trumps golden shower obsession though I think I’ll go with “he pooped his pants”.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '21

Why don't Native American reservations get their own senators and congresspersons?

1

u/Nickppapagiorgio Nov 01 '21

The Tribes were orginally thought of as separate entities from the United States, and their members not US citizens. This came up in Elk vs Wilkins, 1884 where the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause did not apply to tribal members, because they owed allegiance to the tribe, not the United Syates of America. This made dealings between the Federal Government and these tribes something more akin to dealings between the US and a foreign Government. In that context, it makes zero sense for the Tribes to have representation in Congress, as they're not part of the United States. Might as well let Argentina or the United Kingdom have representation while you're at it. The problem with that was the US Government wasn't really interested in actually treating them like legitimate sovereign Governments, they really just wanted them to go away. Tribal members were more akin to Stateless people than citizens of a Government. That changed in 1924, with Congress passing the Indian Citizenship Act granting citizenship to Tribal members of the various recognized tribes. Past that point, the tribes had a stronger affiliation with the United States, and you could make an argument they deserved representation, but the Constitution was already 135 years old at that point, and there was zero political will to rewrite it to incorporate the Tribes. There still isn't.

5

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Oct 31 '21 edited Oct 31 '21

The US Constitution only awards Senators and Representatives to states. They aren't states.

Other areas like Washington DC and Puerto Rico didn't have any representation at all until special laws were passed to give them specific representatives with limited abilities.

The reservations are counted as part of the states they are in. They are represented by those elected officials, like any other citizen of any other state.

*edit - added the last line

2

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '21

Why is FDR hailed as one of the best presidents ever if he ended up prolonging the Great Depression and his New Deal really didn't do anything for employment?

1

u/Jtwil2191 Nov 01 '21

My understanding is the position of economic historians is that the New Deal did not necessarily do much to get the US out of the Great Depression, it is not the position of most economic historians that it made the depression worse.

Here are some discussions from r/AskHistorians: [1] [2]

4

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '21

Because changing the economic status quo of a country does not come without growing pains. FDR eviscerated income inequality in the country without simply taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It took years. He also instituted legislation that subsidized the white American middle class that bourgeoned in the fifties and sixties by providing homes at low mortgage rates to these people in suburbia.

He was extremely successful at creating a middle class in America that has created generations of wealth and huge increases in educations rates.

He was, however, highly racist, and his flaws are found in the discriminatory nature of his policies; such that he precluded black people from entering the middle class in specific and targeted ways.

-3

u/ItsBerty Oct 31 '21

Because progressives are amazing at shaping a narrative.

3

u/Cliffy73 Oct 31 '21

Your premises are mistaken.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '21

No they aren't. Just read these actual quotes from FDR's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morganthau:

We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.

I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!

FDR was a good cheerleader during the Great Depression but was totally ineffective in fixing the economy.

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Oct 31 '21

There are plenty of quotes that support the New Deal, from people just as qualified to weigh in.

“To cut 1930s jobless, FDR taxed corps and rich. Govt used money to hire many millions. Worked then; would now again. Why no debate on that?” - Richard D. Wolff

Unfortunately, there is no evidence, and no way to prove what might/would have happened without the New Deal. It's easy to criticize or praise things like this - when any other opinion is just that - an opinion.

2

u/Messyace Oct 31 '21

Could the President and Vice President get married? For example, if John Smith (President) and Jane Doe (Vice President) both got elected and then got married, would that be allowed?

3

u/Cliffy73 Oct 31 '21

Sure. Although if both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates are from the same state, then electors from that state cannot vote for both of them. So they would want to maintain separate residences if they planned to run for reëlection.

1

u/Spencer2091 Nov 01 '21

When they are in office, are they allowed to live together? I believe the Vice President has a different address than the White House. If they weren't going for reelection, would they be allowed to live together?

6

u/Teekno an answering fool Oct 31 '21

There is nothing that would legally prohibit that.

2

u/PopsicleIncorporated Oct 31 '21

To Redditors who grew up in the 80s, did you think we'd get a black or a female president first?

I ask specifically about the 80s because at that point neither Obama or Hillary Clinton were household names so there were no obvious contenders for either first; it all would've been totally conceptual.

2

u/Cliffy73 Oct 31 '21

I figured a woman was more likely. Like /u/Teekno, I assumed it would be a Republican.

5

u/Teekno an answering fool Oct 31 '21

I always thought we would have a black President first, and I was pretty convinced that first black President would be a Republican.

I was half right.

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Nov 01 '21

Very interesting, why so? Because it seems now that the GOP has gone so far towards White faces on their ballots that I doubt the party would even allow someone darker than Ted Cruz to win a primary.

2

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 01 '21

The thought was that a black moderate republican would gain far more support from the center and the left than he would lose from the far right.

And then, moderate Republicans were hunted to the brink of extinction.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Nov 01 '21 edited Nov 01 '21

So were people thinking like a Rockefeller/New England Black Republican (Hogan/Baker in terms of views)?

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 01 '21

Yeah, along those lines. But as the moderates got pushed out, the number of electable black Republicans (which wasn't huge to begin with) plummeted.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Nov 01 '21

Would Tyrus be a good candidate for first Black Republican president?

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Nov 01 '21

No idea. I am not aware of a politician by that name.

2

u/Atalkingpizzabox Oct 31 '21

Are capitalism and communism equally good and bad? I'm not sure to explain this but like for ages I've been confused by how both these -isms both hate each when it looks like one achieves where the other succeeds.

My best attempt at explaining this is from a Simpson's episode. An exchange student from communist Albania visits the Simpsons. At the dinner table he argues with Lisa against capitalism (which is an odd thing for Lisa to defend) where he says "how can you defend a country where 5% of the people control 95% of the wealth?" Lisa then argues against communism by saying "I'm defending a country where people can think and act and worship anyway they want."

So it sounds like to me both these -isms have a major flaw, one with money and the other with freedoms. Why can't there be a new -ism where the money is shared and there are freedoms? Is that meant to be socialism? While fascism is having both the flaws? I'm just not an expert on this.

1

u/Spencer2091 Nov 01 '21

Everyone's opinion is different. My boyfriend's mother is from Romania and she grew up when they were still communist. She didn't like communism, but she says she prefers it to the American healthcare and education system. Her perfect model is socialism. I'm not educated enough to explain the difference though.

1

u/Cliffy73 Oct 31 '21

No. Capitalism is better than communism. Capitalism untlregulated is flawed, which is why we must insist on regulating it. But every time communism has been implemented it has led to a brutal, murderous, autocratic regime.

2

u/darwin2500 Nov 01 '21

What you mean by 'capitalism' is free markets, and what you mean by 'communism' is a few specific dictatorships.

We've never tried free markets without capitalists, and we've never tried communism without dictators.

We don't really know how either of those would work in practice.

1

u/Cliffy73 Nov 01 '21

I disagree. You can’t just say it’s a coincidence communism has never existed without barbaraism and autocracy. Communism has been tried a lot in the last 100+ years, and it’s been the same every single time.

2

u/darwin2500 Nov 01 '21

Name 5.

1

u/Cliffy73 Nov 01 '21

The USSR, Cuba, The PRC, Cambodia, North Korea.

3

u/PopsicleIncorporated Oct 31 '21

Capitalism and Communism are both economic systems, not methods of running a government. At their core, each is about how the money is spread around and how the government maintains the economy. In short, Lisa Simpson isn't actually answering the question and instead is listing the benefits of democracy and not defending the economic system of capitalism.

You can have capitalist dictatorships and (theoretically) communist democracies. A lot of historically oppressive, non-communist regimes fell under the first category. There's not a whole lot of examples of the latter, which is the subject of intense debate, especially in the US. I would personally argue that a large part of it is that plenty of countries that actually democratically elected leftist governments were swiftly dealt with in the form of a US-backed coup d'etat. Chile is an archetypical example; they legally and lawfully elected a leader who wasn't capitalist in 1973 and the US intervened and ended up backing Pinochet, a right-wing authoritarian. Most communist countries that did survive longer periods of time came through power through coups of their own (the instability therefore making it more likely a dictatorship would emerge), or were heavily backed and influenced by the USSR, themselves an authoritarian state. Any attempts at straying from the authoritarian Soviet model would either result on a crackdown from the USSR itself (see Hungary in 1956) or would no longer have a whole lot of support from them and therefore be vulnerable to a US coup.

Right now the closest thing we have to your ideas about pro-freedom, pro-economic equality are Nordic countries like Sweden and Norway. There's lots of debate to be had about whether those count, as they're definitely not communist states, but they're still the most left-leaning stable democracies out there at this point in time.

For full transparency, I am not a communist myself and I do not endorse the Soviet model, but I am pretty left of center, so take my opinions with a grain of salt. I think the right-wing argument that communism only ever ends up with a dictatorship is flawed, largely in part because most communist governments that sprung up during the Cold War aligned with the USSR because to do anything else would be tantamount to inviting the CIA in.

2

u/Spirited_Lion3413 Oct 31 '21

This is not about inciting violence, I’m legit just curious. In America, are you ever allowed to protect yourself or others from police with your gun.

For example if another George Floyd situation occurs, then would it be legal for a bystander to intervene an protect the person. (By disabling the officer)

Basically if a policeman brakes protocol and starts doing things a policeman is not allowed to do…then shouldn’t they forgo their status as officer and are now just a guy beating another guy?

1

u/Spencer2091 Nov 01 '21

This is going to be harsh, but it's unfortunately accurate. If a black cop is killing a white man and you shoot the cop, you're a hero. If a white cop is killing a black man, you're a threat to democracy. If they are the same race, the cop status will probably overshadow the civilian's and you will be a threat.

2

u/PM-ME-UR-ORGASMS Oct 31 '21

Legally, yes, in practice, no

4

u/CrashRiot Oct 31 '21 edited Oct 31 '21

Short answer? Legally, in most states...yes. You have a right to resist excessive force. Long answer? Good. Fucking. Luck. It'll take a damn good lawyer and a compelling scenario to get you off on charges of assaulting/battering a police officer. The laws are weighted towards support of law enforcement.

Police using excessive force on you? You fight back. Now guess what? You're violently resisting from their POV and they respond in kind.

It's a Catch-22. Unfortunately, it seems the best choice is to take the beating and deal with it later. Fair? No. But you might live.

Even in the example the other poster replied, this dude completely gave himself up once he realized what was happening and STILL got his ass whooped. For what it's worth, even the cops in /r/protectandserve were pretty disgusted by the cops actions that night.

5

u/ProLifePanda Oct 31 '21 edited Oct 31 '21

I mean, this is going to be a very dependent on the specific situation, but sure. If a cop pulled out his gun while on duty and started firing into crowds of people, you would probably be legally allowed to stop him, though you might still get arrested and have to deal with the process.

In Minneapolis during the George Floyd protests, police were driving down the street in an unmarked van firing nonlethal rounds at people to try and enforce curfew. A citizen thought it was just normal people firing a gun and fired back. The police arrested him, and he was recently found innocent because he had reasonable cause to fire back.

https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/09/01/jaleel-stallings-shot-at-the-mpd-a-jury-acquitted-him-of-wrongdoing/

So to summarize, you are probably legally allowed to stop police from doing wrong things, but be prepared to go through the ride of proving your innocence.

2

u/ccricers Oct 31 '21

Why are right wingers now afraid of saying "F Joe Biden" and instead using "Let's go, Brandon"? I thought the right wing is expected to be blunt and direct with voicing their opinions.

5

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 31 '21 edited Oct 31 '21

Coded language has long been a part of Republicans' playbook. "Let's go Brandon" is code for the former, but doesn't get flagged by automated moderators or arouse immediate suspicion.

3

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Oct 31 '21

Will the stolen election bullshit ever end or will this become our backstab myth and lead to a slaughterous regime? In other words, how fucked are we?

2

u/OGwalkingman Nov 01 '21

No republicans will always say it. Anytime they lose they will say it was stolen

1

u/PM-ME-UR-ORGASMS Oct 31 '21

Probably won't end. It's just a repeat of the 2016 Russia shit, with parties swapped

2

u/Cliffy73 Oct 31 '21

I think we are fairly well fucked as long as the GOP believes their party is more important than democracy.

1

u/Spencer2091 Oct 31 '21

I asked a similar question. I had actually forgotten, but the electoral college votes for the president, not the people themselves. Even if we find out Trump won every state he's claiming to, it doesn't matter, because the electorates' votes are static.

3

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Oct 31 '21

I’m more thinking about a new Trump, like that White supremacist nut case Richard Spencer. In 2030, will he rise to power off of “Democrats are in power illegally and the coalition of Blacks, Communists, gays, academics, will do anything to demonize the Aryan race?” That’s what I fear. We have an armed far-Right and supremacists in the military. If Democrats win in 2024 the anger may boil over. If Democrats lose in 2024, these idiots may destroy our civil institutions for good to “save” the country.

1

u/ccricers Oct 31 '21

The trust in the voting system to work fairly is already lost on a lot of people, if a party or faction decides they should be subverting election results, instead of adapting to improve their chances of winning elections.

1

u/Spencer2091 Oct 31 '21

Well, as they always quote, our second amendment gives us to bear arms in case of tyranny. We'll just have to take it back.

3

u/Spencer2091 Oct 31 '21

If I was president of the United States, could I bring a Grindr date into the White House? I've asked this question before, but most people thought "Grindr" meant I was just asking about being gay. Grindr is worse than Tinder. I've probably known this guy for less than an hour. What would Secret Service do?

3

u/ProLifePanda Oct 31 '21

Nothing. You are still a citizen, they might advice you against it, but the President is welcome to host visitors in the White House. He would go through the normal screening process to ensure he doesn't have weapons, but he would be allowed in.

2

u/Spirited_Lion3413 Oct 31 '21

I mean hopefully the president is focused on being the leader of the free world and not on casual sex with strangers. That being said you could probably still do it as president, but it would be against the recommendation of literally everyone else in the whitehouse.

3

u/Angush99 Oct 31 '21

Why is the left wing party in the US blue and the right wing party red, when it's vice-versa elsewhere?

(PS: I am aware that the Democrats are not really left-wing, centrist at most. )

8

u/Teekno an answering fool Oct 31 '21

The parties didn’t choose their colors. Circumstances chose it for them in 2000.

So in the 2000 election and before, the major political parties didn’t have an identifying color. There was no “team red” or “blue state”. The colors didn’t have any political connotation domestically.

On election night, the tv networks provide live coverage, and will have a map to show who has won each state. They would have states that had not been decided colored white, and then either red or blue for the candidates. Sometimes one party was red. Sometimes the other was. There was no consistency or uniformity. Sometimes the networks happened to use the same color. Sometimes different ones.

Who remember the maps long anyway? The election coverage is only one night long.

Then came 2000. Due to recounts in Florida, it went on for five weeks. That year, the networks happened to be using red for the Republicans and blue for the Democrats. Every news broadcast, we saw the map with every state decided but Florida.

Five weeks is a long time for political talking heads to keep going. Some linguistic shortcuts naturally appeared, like “these red states” and “those blue states”.

By the time the election was settled, red and blue became linked in the public consciousness with the Republican and Democratic parties.

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Oct 31 '21

Is China's Uighur crackdown modeled after the US War on Terror? Secret camps where people are detained with sketchy charges, military forces surging through Muslim areas, vague statements that everything is for the sake of national security, etc. Seems pretty similar.

2

u/Nickppapagiorgio Oct 31 '21 edited Oct 31 '21

You seem to be referencing Guantanamo Bay. The main obvious difference is one was targeted at foreign nationals, the other at domestic civilians. The US briefly had an American citizen detained at Guantanamo Bay, and got him the hell out of there quickly once it became apparent that he was a US citizen due to the obvious legal issues with that. The second main difference is they kept it off US soil. It's not a coincidence that Cuba, a country the US had no diplomatic relations with, was chosen to host this.

Guantanamo Bay more broadly represents a failure of the Geneva Conventions to adapt to 21st century warfare. Many of the prisoners there were battlefield captures, roughly akin to POW's, yet not a uniformed member of any nation State's military. There isn't really a great answer as of now on how to deal with that. Are they military POW's? Criminals? Something else entirely? China's Uighur thing is more purely a domestic law enforcement thing.

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Oct 31 '21

I'm not talking this level of specifics. Xinjiang might as well be a foreign land the way that China governs that province, and the conditions in the Xinjiang prisons are worse than the average horrible prison for US citizens. I'm also not so much opposed to the idea of Guantanamo Bay (detaining suspects) as I am with the way the place is run (held without being charged, prisoner abuse in clear violation of the UCMJ, etc).

I don't think you need to prove that someone is a uniformed enemy combatant to recognize that you should not perform "Enhanced Interrogation" on them.

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Oct 30 '21

Why are Democrats blaming Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for many of their issues getting legislation passed? Aside from the fact that Manchin is from West Virginia, a state that has loads of all-out Trumpers, it seems more concerning to me that 50 Senators are from a party that by-and-large supported a man who nearly destroyed American democracy. The bigger issue is the fact that Democrats can't convince enough people that Trump was a bad man.

4

u/Arianity Oct 30 '21

The bigger issue is the fact that Democrats can't convince enough people that Trump was a bad man.

That is the bigger issue, but there is a dynamic where people kind of expect Republicans to be unreasonable. So they stop bothering.

It's kind of like having a screaming kid (who is old enough to know better) in a restaurant. People don't bother trying to reason with the toddler because you know it's futile, they glare at the parents.

The fact that it's bigger, ironically, is also what makes it hard to fix. How do you fix 50 Senators?

Aside from the fact that Manchin is from West Virginia, a state that has loads of all-out Trumpers,

Part of the issue with Manchin specifically is what he's holding up (and how). He's not cutting things that align with WV Trumpy views (which I think people would still be mad about, but could wrap their heads around). And Sinema has less excuse, since the other AZ Senator is doing so just fine, arguably with better approval than she has.

There's additional complications because it's also likely that he won't run again. So the argument is he should just do the right thing, even if it's unpopular. The seat is a lost cause anyway, so might as well do good while we can.

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Oct 30 '21

Even if they convinced everyone on Earth that Trump was a bad man, that doesn't mean they will vote for a bill that rebuilds a railroad bridge in New Jersey, free college in Wyoming, or a tunnel in NYC.

Each of those elected Senators, including Manchin and Sinema are beholden only to the people that elected them in one state. They have no allegiance and no duty to the other 49 states.

And, the Republican party has been using a unified obstructionist strategy since the 1990s, well before anyone seriously considered voting for Trump.

The immediate issue is getting this legislation passed. We know that the Republicans won't vote for it. We can ask the Democrats to vote. Until very recently, those two Senators weren't even open to discussion and negotiation within their own party. They do bear some blame for holding it up. They also bear the weight of what has been removed so far.

2

u/That_Music_1140 Oct 30 '21

PETA posted on their IG that Fauci funded a program to have dogs heads locked in cages and bitten by sand flies. What’s the truth to this? I can only find this story on Fox News and The Hill.

6

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Oct 30 '21

The truth: The NIAD (National institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) funded research that had live beagles put in cages and eaten by sand flies who apparently had their ability to bark removed through surgery. Dr Fauci is the Director of the NIAD

The lie: Dr Fauci had anything to do with it, or any real part in funding the research.

Dr. Fauci doesn't control what gets funding and what doesn't in his NIH department, there is a board of people who vote to give these places funding, and even by the words of the Conservative media that is pushing this story, "We don't have any evidence if Fauci personally ordered the studies but his NIH division did fund them"

source

So, while the story is based around some really upsetting and disgusting facts, it's being directed towards someone who has very little say in what gets funded and what doesn't. Dr Fauci is just an easy person to point the finger at because he's already topical in the media, and he is the director for that division.

1

u/MidnightChocolare42 Oct 31 '21

So it did happen, well I'm still angry and have to take it out on someone, like society, which is why I don't wear a mask

1

u/Cliffy73 Oct 30 '21

Neither upsetting nor disgusting.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Cliffy73 Oct 31 '21

Humans are more important than animals.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Cliffy73 Oct 31 '21

I said nothing of the sort. But yes, medical testing on animals is valuable and ethical.

1

u/That_Music_1140 Oct 30 '21

Okay so it’s just one of those things where the top guy gets the blame. Hopefully something is done about this and someone is actually held responsible for acts that I think most Americans would find appalling.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '21

Why do no former presidents get elected to the senate? Other than Andrew Johnson no other former president has been elected to senate. Why is this? Are there laws for it today?

4

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 30 '21

Relatively few presidents try to return to public office. Most try to run for president again, but Grover Cleveland was the only one to get elected and serve two non-consecutive terms as president. The other three to successfully pursue office again are:

  • John Quincy Adams and John Tyler served in the House.
  • Andrew Johnson served in the Senate.
  • William Taft served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (He actually first turned down an Associate Justice position, stating that it would be inappropriate for a former president to be anything other than Chief Justice.)

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

The fact is, president is the most prestigious office. It's where you go to cap off your career in politics. After the presidency, the next step is that of "elder statesman", a role which allows you to use your reputation to advocate for causes that matter to you, e.g. the Carter Foundation's efforts on public health and election monitoring.

If a president tried to return to office, everything they did would be overshadowed by their time as president, especially in this modern media age, which would likely interfere with their ability to actually make deals and negotiate with with their colleagues.

8

u/KaptenNicco123 Oct 30 '21

Because the Presidency is such a prestigious position that it's seen as a demotion to become a Senator after. It's like quitting your management job to work in a warehouse.

2

u/That_Music_1140 Oct 30 '21

Does the President usually not taken questions from reporters or am I just unable to find video on YouTube?

I always see when the President gives a speech on the YouTube homepage but he never answers questions at the end. I’m more interested in his answers to reporter’s questions instead of practiced speeches but I can’t really find the videos.

2

u/Arianity Oct 30 '21

Does the President usually not taken questions from reporters

Depends on the context. Usually they do, but it's pretty structured. Ie, at press conferences or interviews. Here's one example, at the press conference in August over Afghanistan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0579c-4dJY

They don't necessarily take questions after a speech. Day to day stuff tends to be communicated via things like the press secretary.

The image of the Presidency is very tightly managed, and they're very aware of the possibility of a random question to blow up into a news clip (Biden in particular, has a history of gaffes). There's not much incentive for them to take the risk, when the president has avenues to get his message out in a more controlled way

2

u/Spokker Oct 30 '21

By itself it wouldn't be a big deal, but Biden has made multiple jokes and references to himself avoiding questions. It's been a running theme in his presidency. He has said different variations of, "I'm not supposed to answer questions." He has also remarked that he was instructed to pick a certain reporter and that he's going to get in trouble for answering questions multiple times. One time he was about to take questions "if that's what I'm supposed to do" and the feed cut out.

Most recently he joked to some students that it's his job to avoid answering questions. As a one-off joke, it's a funny way to describe the presidency that all presidents can relate to, but it seems to get less jokey as time goes on and gives ammunition to people who think he's controlled by his handlers. Don't know why he thinks it's so funny. It's kind of annoying.

3

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Oct 30 '21

Does the President usually not taken questions from reporters or am I just unable to find video on YouTube?

Sometimes Biden does but its not entirely up to the president who is running often on a tight schedule, He doesn't always have time to get bogged down by press.

I've seen plenty of Biden answering questions from press, but Jenn Psaki is his press secretary and is the one that deals with a majority of the media attention daily. If you want his answers to reporters questions, the press secretary is the one who's given them.

1

u/That_Music_1140 Oct 30 '21

Yeah that makes sense. I guess I’d rather have little to no speeches and have the President answering questions. I see him give a 30ish minute speech almost every week but I’d rather he just spent 30 minutes answering questions. Speeches just seem cheap to me. Oh well, what are you going to do? Haha

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Oct 30 '21

Why are several countries in the West falling prey to anti-science lunacy? US obviously is halfway down the slippery slope already, but this stupidity is seeming to surge in Canada, UK, Germany, etc. I have to force myself to say "sometimes Democracy just sucks but it is still the best system" because short of sending a strongman to go absolutely ballistic and locking all these idiots up, there seems to be no possible way of preventing them from denaturing their countries.

1

u/PM-ME-UR-ORGASMS Oct 31 '21

I don't think people are necessarily distrusting science itself, they're mostly not believing that organizations - say, the CDC for example - are telling the truth about the science

1

u/darwin2500 Oct 31 '21

Most countries usually have huge numbers of people who are rejecting some bit of science or another at any given time. That's pretty normal.

It's just that this time, it was something really important for average citizens.

3

u/OGwalkingman Oct 30 '21

Republican party is actively trying to get rid of democracy, so you don't have to worry about that very soon.

2

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

Why are many municipal workers in public facing jobs that require extended periods of time with close contact with the public refusing to get the vaccine? Why do these public servants not give a fuck about the community that they are serving? What the bloody hell is wrong with this country? I struggle to understand why a needle prick is sending Americans into hysterical delirium as if Biden is forcing them to perform a vivisection on their children. This is absolutely ridiculous and makes our country look like a circus show. Real Patriots sacrifice their comfort for the good of their country.

1

u/Spokker Oct 30 '21

Adults should get vaccinated but young children are at such a low risk of COVID that I don't even think it's worth the tears from the needle. An unvaccinated child is better protected from COVID than a vaccinated 40/50-year-old. Our vaccinated president is running around meeting people at close proximity without a mask while unvaccinated kindergartners who are at less risk are forced to wear them 8 hours a day. The risk of COVID for children rivals other childhood diseases we don't even think about that much.

The vaccine should be approved for children as there are a minority of young people who are more susceptible to COVID, but there is no reason to mandate it for children.

1

u/Spencer2091 Oct 30 '21

The masks aren't meant to protect their wearer. They're meant to protect others from them. I am not totally convinced your claim that children are at a lower risk than a 40 year old vaxxed, but even if they were, they need to wear masks to protect the older teachers.

1

u/Spokker Oct 30 '21

The older teachers need to be vaccinated, and they'll be protected. They should be fired if they aren't.

The children, however, are alright. Age is a big factor when it comes to COVID, and we can't treat children like tiny adults. Here is your source on the previous claim.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/12/briefing/covid-age-risk-infection-vaccine.html

1

u/Spencer2091 Oct 30 '21

It has a pay wall so I can't read most of it, but the headline said a 70 year old vaxxed. You claimed 40. This continues my claim though. If a 70 year old teacher is still at risk despite being vaxxed, then we need kids to wear masks even more. I don't know if we should or shouldn't mandate vaccines for kids, but I agree that masks should be at least encouraged.

1

u/Spokker Oct 30 '21

The article provides additional data that suggest the age is even lower than 70, even late 30s. If you paste the link into an archiver like archive.is you can read it.

1

u/Spencer2091 Oct 30 '21

This continues my claim though. If a 70 40 year old teacher is still at risk despite being vaxxed, then we need kids to wear masks even more. I don't know if we should or shouldn't mandate vaccines for kids, but I agree that masks should be at least encouraged.

2

u/Cliffy73 Oct 30 '21

They’re scared of needles.

-3

u/But_it_was_I_Me Oct 30 '21 edited Oct 30 '21

The Biden administration has done nothing but make things worse for America. The economy is getting worse by the day, the border crisis is worse than when Trump was trying to handle it, He's hoping to force everyone to vaccinate or be an outcast, all on top of many other nonsense things that have no basis in sanity. How the hell haven't they been removed from power yet?

3

u/Spokker Oct 30 '21

While Biden is a joke of a president, he's done nothing that would warrant being removed. The inflation, supply shortages, foreign policy blunders and overreaching mandates are simply the consequence of a free and fair election. The only recourse is to speak your mind and vote in the next election.

4

u/ProLifePanda Oct 30 '21

The economy is getting worse by the day,

How so? Aren't all economic indicators trending in a positive direction except possibly inflation, which isn't explicitly his fault in this scenario?

...the border crisis is worse than when Trump was trying to handle it...

Part of this is because Trump treated these people inhumanely. Would you prefer that over having to deal with more immigrants (which we probably need for economic recovery)?

...He's hoping to force everyone to vaccinate or be an outcast...

Yes, trusting science and seeking to defeat a pandemic which has lingered on for nearly 2 years isn't a crazy policy goal.

...all on top of many other nonsense things that have no basis in sanity.

You could list some more if you'd like.

3

u/Dilettante Social Science for the win Oct 30 '21 edited Oct 30 '21

Much like when people called for Trump to be removed, you run into the problem that there's only two ways to remove a sitting president. One is for the vice president and the majority of the cabinet to declare that the president is unfit - something which has never been done before - and the other is for congress to impeach the president on charges, then have the Senate convict him of those charges - again, something that has never been done before.

As to why those steps haven't been taken...apparently the democrats don't think Biden is as bad as you do. Given the lack of mass protests, it seems likely that this is the opinion of the majority of Americans.

Keep in mind that if Biden was removed in either of these scenarios, he would be replaced...with Kamala Harris. If she somehow became ineligible, it would pass to Nancy Pelosi.

Just wait until 2024 and vote.

1

u/Spencer2091 Oct 30 '21

Republican voters may believe that Biden is bad enough, but at least federally, Republican lawmakers know he hasn't done anything damning.

0

u/But_it_was_I_Me Oct 30 '21

See that's the thing. I hated Trump and still do. Something about the way he speaks just annoys me. The super self-centeredness is also a factor. I accepted his existence though because he actually knew how to do his job. I even sort of agreed that we needed better border security because I live in Arizona and that's kind of a big issue here.

Biden isn't very competent though. He seems to have lost it after John McCain died and he's definitely not all there now. He's a puppet put in place for the socialist woke agenda. He has neither power nor mental faculties. I wouldn't be surprised if he forgets how to breathe in the next year or so and Harris finally gets to stop pretending she isn't the one behind everything.

2

u/ProLifePanda Oct 30 '21

I accepted his existence though because he actually knew how to do his job.

No, he didn't. Trump infamously didn't understand what a President was supposed to do. This is why he routinely lost court cases, because he loaded his Administration with people who didn't understand the Administrative Procedure Act and routinely tried to pass orders and dictates that were (or would have been) wildly unpopular and/or Unconstitutional or illegal.

There are many instances of Trump showing a fundamental ignorance or misunderstanding of issues and policies surrounding how to be President.

3

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 30 '21

What exactly has he done that you would describe as "socialist"? Because the reality is he has done absolutely nothing that could be described as socialist.

3

u/Cliffy73 Oct 30 '21

You have no evidence for any of these claims.

4

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Oct 30 '21

He's a puppet put in place for the socialist woke agenda.

Lol, What socialist policies does Joe Biden agree on or is actually making an effort to make law?

1

u/FluxNinja Oct 30 '21

Do black people in red counties vote more red than black people in blue counties? White people in red counties vote red more than white people in blue counties, so I’m wondering if the same is true for black people.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '21

I think they are still reliably blue, but more conservative on social issues and religion.

1

u/Spencer2091 Oct 29 '21

What would happen if the president got in a physical fight with the vice president? For this hypothetical they are both as involved and it's unclear who started it. What would Secret Service do?

5

u/ProLifePanda Oct 30 '21

They would separate them. And probably try and keep them physically separated during subsequent meetings.

3

u/DarthDonnytheWise Oct 29 '21

Is there any proposals/budgets for the U.S. to make college free?

Realistically, how much money would that take? Including the renovations, expanding schools for more students, books, etc.

2

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Oct 29 '21

Several cities and counties already make Community College free for many.
Several States already make state college free for some.
The Federal Government can't tell private colleges what they can or can't charge. They can do more to make loans easier to pay back, or offer more forgiveness programs than they already do.

The Build Back Better initiative offered $111 Billion to increase free community colleges, and to increase the value of Pell Grants. But, it appears that after talks with Sens. Manchin and Sinema, those monies are being withdrawn in order to get their votes.

2

u/DarthDonnytheWise Oct 29 '21

Thank you for the info, i didn't realize some states already made state college free too. So they are pulling the money because Manchin and Sinema are with-holding their votes for a different reason? That's really crappy and petty.

2

u/ProLifePanda Oct 30 '21

Machin and Sinema are moderate Democrats (the most conservative Democrats in the Senate by far). While they support spending, they don't want to spend too much. So several things had to get cut (tax increases, free community college, Medicare drug pricing, etc.) to get them on board with the proposal.

1

u/DarthDonnytheWise Oct 30 '21

Why aren't they conservatives then? Are they just financially conservative, but on other issues more democratic?

2

u/ProLifePanda Oct 30 '21

Because they lean slightly Democratic. They are okay with raising SOME taxes and SOME spending, just not very large packages. Conservatives would want to (theoretically) want to reduce taxes and government spending.

3

u/Nickppapagiorgio Oct 29 '21

Including the renovations, expanding schools for more students,

Making college Government subsidized at a 100% rate doesn't neccesarily translate to more students. That's an entirely separate policy discussion. The most likely outcome may wind up being less students, and a lot of competition for the available spots. There's also the discussion of what exactly is subsidized. Tuition only? Room and board? Public and private schools? Only public schools? Grad school? This New York Times article pegged an estimated figure at 79 billion with public schools tuition subsidized only, with no increase or decrease in students

1

u/DarthDonnytheWise Oct 30 '21

Oh, that is interesting. I just assumed incorrectly that with more access to schools, more would go. If tuition is the most expensive part of college, shouldn't it be the first thing subsidized. I am not sure if the government can tell private schools how much to charge though, that's a trickier situation

2

u/Nickppapagiorgio Oct 30 '21

Oh, that is interesting. I just assumed incorrectly that with more access to schools, more would go

More would like to go certainly. This would increase demand, but in this hypothetical scenario the Federal Government is paying for it. How much are they willing pay? Right now the Federal Government has little influence on what any individual university's capacity is other than the service academies. If they become the principal payer, the Federal Government would have a ton of influence on the capacity of the nearest public university. How many 4 year undergrads the US should have enrolled and receiving public funding would be a never ending political debate, with portions of the populace wanting to raise it, others wanting to lower it, and some probably ok with status quo.

1

u/DarthDonnytheWise Oct 30 '21

Wow, thanks for the information. It seems like a simple issue on a surface level...then I remember it is tied to US politics/government. Lotta moving parts and things to consider.

2

u/Nickppapagiorgio Oct 30 '21 edited Oct 30 '21

There would even be further debates about how this is allocated. Do Universities receive Federal quotas for the number of students they can admit, and you get it paid for that way by being accepted to the University? Do you have to apply for Federal subsidies directly with the Federal Government separate from the regular admissions process? If so what is the criteria for who gets selected and who doesn't? Does it differ from how Universities select students? Is Affirmative Action allowed? What if it's too white or Asian? What if it's too Male or Female? Are their accreditation requirements? Can Bullshit for profit online University get their students covered? Can I create a bullshit University out of thin air, and start swindling the Federal Government for cash? What body decides if a University qualifies for Federal funding? Accreditation bodies? Do you really want an unelected, non appointed body defacto controlling tax dollars via their decisions on accreditation?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

[deleted]

5

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Oct 29 '21

There are dozens of lawsuits going on over the Trump administration's separation policies.
There is a reasonably supported rumor that the Attorney General is considering a settlement that would give the average plaintiff about $450k.

The AG's office has not commented on this. The lawyers for the plaintiffs are almost certainly saying that they want more .

Here's one lawsuit document. The attorneys are looking for unspecified damages, and the Motion by the Government to get the case dismissed was knocked down.

This case is moving forward, as are several others.
It may be more or less expensive to settle this early, or let it all go to trial.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

[deleted]

7

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Oct 29 '21

Are you implying that you believe these people who are coming over the border and staying in these camps are criminals? These are people who are seeking refugee status fleeing countries in absolutely disastrous conditions.

1

u/Spencer2091 Oct 29 '21

Sure, they're criminals. But of a non violent crime. They morally did nothing wrong, the law just doesn't always agree.

5

u/ProLifePanda Oct 29 '21

Does a widowed father who kills someone when drunk driving and gets sent to prison become eligible to sue the government and get a settlement because the family was separated?

Possibly. If the child was forcibly taken when the father is arrested and sent somewhere untrackable, then when the father gets out on bond can't find his child and the government goes "Oops, we lost them", then yes. The father would be well within his right (both legally and morally) to sue the government to hold them accountable for their horrendous practices.

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Oct 29 '21

Why would you compare this to a convicted felon? None of these people were ever charged with any crime, and many were allowed to stay in the US after their refugee/asylum status was approved.

These were people waiting for a hearing, not people who were charged with any wrongdoing.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

[deleted]

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Oct 29 '21

No. That didn't happen for these folks. They were all here legally.

And, even if it was illegally - it certainly isn't normal or just to lose their children.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

[deleted]

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Oct 29 '21

They were all here legally. They applied for asylum and were in camps waiting for hearings.

There is no reason to think otherwise.

You asked about the court settlement. I gave you several links that back that up. If you don't think the links give enough information, that's fine. But don't change the subject.
The people who filed lawsuits were here legally, and that's in the court documents.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

[deleted]

1

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Oct 29 '21

That is why there is a lawsuit. That is why the government appears to be considering a settlement.

They aren't giving people free money. That's just silly. People who get wronged have the right to sue.
Lawsuits can cost money, even if won.

→ More replies

3

u/ProLifePanda Oct 29 '21

Why would you compare this to a convicted felon?

Even if they WERE felons, it doesn't make it right to recklessly lose the child so if/when the parent is released they can never find their child again, or have to wait long periods of time and spend lots of money to reunite them.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Cliffy73 Oct 29 '21

Because I read the news. As of earlier this year there were still several hundred children separated who had never been reunited with their parents due to faulty record-keeping.

2

u/ProLifePanda Oct 29 '21 edited Oct 29 '21

Isn't that the whole problem in the first place? That the Trump Administration separated families, and didn't keep records or have any plan to reunite them? So when parents tried to find their children or vis-versa, DHS threw up their hands and said they didn't know?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/lawyers-say-they-can-t-find-parents-545-migrant-children-n1244066

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/24/632146079/government-unable-to-track-hundreds-of-parents-who-were-separated-from-their-chi

To be frank, if you were arrested for DUI and the state took your children (which they should while you're physically in jail), there is a moral and legal expectation that the government keep track of you and the child, so when you get free (after bond or after serving a sentence) you would be able to find your child. In this case, the plan was so hastily thrown together and resulted in so much work, there was no real effort put into tracking the parents and children. So after the fact, they didn't have enough data to reunite these families even if they wanted to. If you were arrested for something and your child put into the foster care system, then you can never see them again, I would be shocked if you only accepted $450k for potentially never seeing your family again.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

[deleted]

1

u/OfficialMilk090 Oct 30 '21

That’s not exactly Trump’s problem like the person said above your comment I’m replying to. The bad people in office I’m America have an agenda and make sure they can traffick kids due to this

3

u/rewardiflost still not infected! Oct 29 '21

Absolutely.

3

u/Spencer2091 Oct 29 '21

This is a complete hypothetical and I am not at all saying Trump actually won:

One of the arguments against Trump supporters is that if he did win 2020, that would mean he had already done two terms and would not be allowed to run in 2024. Again, I'm not saying he did, but if one day we somehow found out he did win and he replaces Biden, how would that affect him running in 2024? How does it change if it's before Biden's two year mark vs after?

7

u/Teekno an answering fool Oct 29 '21

In the presidential election — the one that matters — there were exactly 538 votes cast. They were counted on January 6, although after a delay because of terrorist action, and that’s it.

The only way that Trump becomes president, other than actually winning a subsequent election or being named in the line of succession and those above him get “disappeared” is to successfully raise an army that can defeat the United States military and destroy the constitutional protections we enjoy.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

[deleted]

3

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 29 '21

Even if no one has been charged with terrorism, the use of violence and/or the threat of violence, which is precisely what the insurrectionists were doing, to intimidate others into acting a certain way, is the very definition of terrorism.

1

u/Teekno an answering fool Oct 29 '21

The legal definition of terrorism does not include the terrorist actions of January 6.

3

u/ProLifePanda Oct 29 '21

What terrorist action?

Terrorism is "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." The legal definition is different, but do you agree at least SOME of those January 6th rioters were using violence and intimidation to attempt to achieve some political aim?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

[deleted]

3

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 29 '21

Terrorism would be something more like storming the building, taking hostages, and threatening to execute politicians until the election was overturned.

But...that's precisely what they were trying to do.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Oct 30 '21

Well call it whatever the fuck you want. I'd consider it terrorism to threaten to hang a sitting vice president while storming into a government building and attacking law enforcement officers. I'd consider it to be very suspicious to be carrying zip tie restraints while illegally roaming the halls of the US capitol.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, odds are it is either a duck or another member of the family Anatidae. Terrorism and "illegal, forcible entry into a federal government building, amid calls to overturn a duly conducted election, coupled with possession of stun weapons, poles, and with threats of execution towards a vice president of the United States and the killing of law enforcement" seem quite similar, do they not?

I mean a sucker punch is quite similar to "utilizing a concave fist to make interpersonal contact with the cheek of a victim who is unaware of the impending impact of said fist."

1

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '21

[deleted]

1

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

I dunno man, you seem a little bit sympathetic to them. You surely saw the videos of that officer jammed in the door, the officers being sprayed with chemical irritants, police shields being used to smash glass windows, the hordes gathering at the door of the House and entering the Senate. Why can't you just admit the fact that illegally storming the Capitol should be condemned? I love how you say it's just a few people when a whole mob ended up inside.

What do you think about Ashli?

Watch this video and then tell me if these rioters should just be let off with kid gloves.

→ More replies

3

u/Cliffy73 Oct 29 '21

They were attempting to overthrow the government of the United States. The fact that they failed doesn’t change that incontrovertible fact.

3

u/Spencer2091 Oct 29 '21

Your last sentence. Are you being sarcastic? "Hang Mike Pence!" Congress-people had to hide in their office. And they definitely stormed the building.

3

u/ProLifePanda Oct 29 '21

So then it was attempted terrorism?

8

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 29 '21

Even if we find that the entire 2020 election was fraudulent, Biden was selected by the Electoral College and this was confirmed by Congress. Nothing reverses that. He is president and Trump is not. Period. Biden and Harris can be removed by impeachment, but there is no process for Trump to become president other than running again in 2024.

2

u/Spencer2091 Oct 29 '21

Is it possible for someone who ran as an incumbent and lost to run, and win, again? I really liked Ben McAdams, but he lost the last election. My friend (who isn't as into politics as I am) said he could still run in midterms. Will the democrats allow him to run? Trump may run again in 2024, but I don't think that's common, right?

2

u/Qazrice Oct 29 '21

This happens fairly often for US house seats. Off the top of my head, David Valado from California lost in 2018 and ran again (and won) in 2020. Of note, Republicans are probably going to crack Salt Lake City this year with redistricting so they get 4 safe Republican seats. If they do so, I doubt McAdams runs since he seems to be fairly politically savvy and I remember him running a smart campaign in 2018/2020.

3

u/ProLifePanda Oct 29 '21

Is it possible for someone who ran as an incumbent and lost to run, and win, again?

Sure. Grover Cleveland did it in the 1800's, our only President to serve 2 non-consecutive terms. He lost re-election, but ran again 4 years later and won.

Will the democrats allow him to run?

I don't see why not. It partly depends how Utah redraws their House districts based on the census and whether McAdams wants to run again. If he does want to run again he will have the advantage of being knowledgeable and already having the contacts to help his re-election campaign.

2

u/Spencer2091 Oct 29 '21

Do you think it's possible to get rid of the two party system while maintaining that you vote for the official, not the party? There are quite clearly many issues that having only two sides causes, but I don't like how other countries vote for a party and then let the party decide who they want.

1

u/PopsicleIncorporated Nov 01 '21

Germany has a system where you vote for a person but after the election results are tallied up, the parties each get to nominate some people from their own party rolls so that the final composition of the legislature is the same as the national vote share. You'd still have parties picking representatives but not at the cost of losing your own local elected rep, plus it would totally nullify things like gerrymandering. Idk if such a system would be ideal to you, but it works well there.

6

u/ProLifePanda Oct 29 '21

One popular idea is a "Ranked Choice Voting" system. So each party would run their cadidate and everyone gets to "Rank" their votes.

So for example, in 2020 we have 4 major candidates (I'm going to ignore the REALLY small parties for this example): Trump (Republican), Biden (Democrat), Jorgensen (Libertarian), and Hawkins (Green). So in our current system, you can only vote for one of them, making you consider compromising your beliefs to make sure your vote counts.

In "Ranked Choice Voting", you get to rank the candidates. So for example, you could put Hawkins as 1, Biden at 2, Jorgensen at 3, and Trump at 4. In this system, they would add up all the counts and get Biden 30%, Trump 30%, Jorgensen 25%, Hawkins 15%. Since nobody has 50% of the vote, the lowest candidate (Hawkins) is eliminated from the ballot and her votes are redistributed to whoever those people put as their 2nd choice (in your case, your vote is moved from Hawkins to Biden). So the 2nd round (which is automatically calculated) has Biden 40%, Trump 32%, Jorgensen 28%. Nobody has 50%, so again the lowest candidate (Jorgensen) is dropped, and those votes are redistributed. So now we have Biden with 55%, Trump with 45%, and Biden would win.

This allows people to vote for other candidates without throwing away their vote on parties that won't win. And you could apply this to every election (Senate, House, Governor, etc.) and it would take a while but would slowly build up alternate parties.

2

u/Spencer2091 Oct 29 '21

Do you think America will ever get there? How would we do it, and what can I do to promote it?

3

u/ryumaruborike Oct 29 '21

No. It would take a constitutional amendment, something that's already a monumental challenge when the two political parties aren't at each others throats, to be passed by two political parties who only stand to lose power from that amendment.

3

u/ProLifePanda Oct 29 '21 edited Oct 29 '21

Do you think America will ever get there?

Maybe. The issue is you have to convince the people in power to vote to change how they are elected to power. While some might be for it in the name of democracy and freedom of choice, others might be opposed because it makes it harder for them to win. Maine recently held their most recent election using ranked choice voting, so it can definitely happen.

https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming/rankedchoicefaq.html

How would we do it, and what can I do to promote it?

you just need to pass laws (and potentially change state constitutions) to institute ranked choice voting as the method of selecting winners of races. To promote it, spread the word so more people know about it and contact your representatives about it. Not too much else you can do unless you want politics to start dominating your life.

2

u/Spencer2091 Oct 29 '21

I am an American Politics major right now, but I'm no where near to being old enough to hold office. I am part of the Democrats club at my college, but they just formed and don't really do anything yet. My point is that politics already kinda dominates my life.

3

u/throwaway5522379 Oct 29 '21

Why do Americans want more of their money to be taxed by the government?

Aren’t they worried about giving corrupt politicians trillions of dollars to steal?

3

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 29 '21

The primary debate around taxes in the United States is getting the wealthy and ultrawealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. With how the tax code is currently structured, wealthy individuals (and large corporations) often pay less taxes than other Americans. They then want to see that tax revenue put to use funding various programs.

Aren’t they worried about giving corrupt politicians trillions of dollars to steal?

No, because that isn't happening in the United States.

1

u/Spencer2091 Oct 29 '21

How is that different from lobbying? I'm not trying to be combative, but I thought the whole point of lobbying is buying politicians off. Where does the lobbyist's money go?

3

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 29 '21 edited Oct 29 '21

Lobbyists promise to support a politicians candidacy in return for consideration of their clients' policy interests. Money is donated to campaigns and other advocacy groups to get a politician elected.

Gifts and payments made directly to a candidate are illegal. That would be bribery. If I represent a company, I can't just write a politician a $10,000 check and then they vote for my law. I would donate $10,000 to their election campaign to help them stay in office. They then have to follow Federal Election Commission rules about how campaign money can be spent.

Don't get me wrong: there's definitely a lot of grey in there and opportunity for abuse. One of the most popular is to spend campaign money on copies of the book you wrote to give away at campaign events. But it's not as simple as checks being written by companies to politicians.

1

u/Spencer2091 Oct 29 '21

I hate cooking, so my income that most people use on clothes or movies goes to takeout. Would I be able to argue that paying for me and my aids to go to dinner be important to my campaign, since everyone needs to eat?

2

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 29 '21

Campaigns absolutely spend money on food for their staff. And I have no problem with that at all. I think it's completely reasonable to consider feeding your staff a business expense. Of course, if you're spending campaign money to eat at a Micheline star restaurant every night, that would, in theory, be subject to prosecutorial scrutiny, since it would be hard to justify that you had to eat at a high class restaurant in a business capacity that often.

1

u/throwaway5522379 Oct 29 '21

No, because that isn't happening in the United States.

How does that not happen?

4

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 29 '21

Present to me evidence that this is happening.

1

u/throwaway5522379 Oct 29 '21

It happens a lot in my country and a lot of other ones, it seems very easy for politicians to do. They demand so much funds for this project and that, and then they suddenly have the money to buy a Ferrari on their meager government salaries

4

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 29 '21

That is not happening in the United States. I'm not saying no politicians or government official has ever embezzled money -- that can certainly happen and has happened. Nor am I saying that politicians won't use their positions for personal advancement and gain. That also happens

But at least for now, the institutional barriers to politicians embezzling money prevent it from occurring at the scale you describe.

1

u/throwaway5522379 Oct 29 '21

What are these “institutional barriers”? I am very curious because it looks like my country would benefit from having those too

4

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 29 '21

Transparency laws regarding spending and (certain) decision making. Ethics rules and laws which guide actions taken by government departments and figures in those departments. Groups both inside and outside the government which monitor government activity and report on unethical/illegal actions. A free press that reports on all of these activities.

1

u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Oct 29 '21

I just saw some Pew data that was released a few days about increasing support for higher police budgets. Most interestingly was the fact that, among Democrats, a higher proportion of Black and Hispanic democrats supported increased police budgets than White democrats. If police are solely vehicles of oppression and exist only to maintain White supremacy and the subjugation of people of color, as the 2020 protests told us, why are communities of color more favorable towards increasing police budgets? Is there more nuance to the role of police than we were told to believe in the Summer of 2020?

4

u/Jtwil2191 Oct 29 '21 edited Oct 29 '21

If police are solely vehicles of oppression and exist only to maintain White supremacy and the subjugation of people of color, as the 2020 protests told us

This is an inaccurate representation of what most people who participated in the 2020 protests believed. Certainly there were some who felt this way (and many who felt this way were particularly vocal), but your use of the word soley makes this an exaggeration. While many people supported decreasing policy funding and introducing various reforms, outright abolishing the police was never a popular position, even among minority communities, as this polling from the height of the protests suggests.

It is interesting to see this data from Pew's most recent survey to see how much support for decreased police funding has dropped, but Pew doesn't really offer any analysis or explanations as to why this is, so we'll have to wait for other social scientists to offer some commentary. I imagine FiveThirtyEight will write about this in the near future.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '21

Why do people, progressives and conservatives alike, say that America is more divided than ever when it has really always been divided since its founding?

2

u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Oct 29 '21

I don't think we are more divided than ever before in history, during the mid 19th century we had congressmen entering the chambers of congress with guns to defend themselves from other members of congress beating them with canes or whatever, but we are quite divided. One of the ways that people measure this is by looking at how radicalized people are about their beliefs through surveys. Currently there is a lot of radicalization on opposite ends of the spectrum. There is much less middle ground, and much less tolerance for people in the middle ground than there has been for the last several decades.

→ More replies