American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[activeStick]

I fully admit I am excited to see this after watching the trailer for the 3-part docuseries, "Unprecedented".

https://twitter.com/user/status/1544353509369417728

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Directly attacking the court decision seems to be nothing but more of the same. Use of abortion as a political foil. None of these people care about Americans, only their own power, and being able to use such an effective smokescreen benefits them all. Why would they get rid of it?

If the Dems were serious about abortion, gun rights, or any of these perpetual issues, they would start by altering the makeup of the supreme court or find a way to break the block voting gridlock. But what is in the interest of the majority of Americans is not in the interest of the people in positions of power.

I mean, probably because doing those things are very, very difficult is the answer.

Stack the court? Why wouldn't the GOP do the exact thing the next time around?

Break voting gridlock (presumably by ending the filibuster?) end up opening the door for the GOP to push through their legislation on a simple majority? As noted legislation would face numerous, unending lawsuits.

End gerrymandering? These are state driven voting boundaries, under the jurisdiction of the state. The US is all about states rights...the federal government doesn't have the power to change them as far as I know.

End voting gridlock in the Senate? Wyoming (pop less than 1M) has 2 senators and California (pop 40M) both have 2 Senators, which is insane. The democratic senators probably represent 40-50 million more actual voters than the GOP states in total, in the senate, but nothing progressive gets through the Senate.

Change the number of Senators? It will also never, ever happen. The Senatorial representation for each state is enshrined in the Constitution.

Any lasting laws and legislation requires both parties to come to the dance. The issues you have pointed out are some of the biggest wedge issues in the US - the GOP would never compromise. And if they did, they'd get "primaried" out of office the next chance they are up for re-election.

[Harry Lime]

None of that really. Why work within a broken system?

Example : ending the filibuster. Who cares? That is a short term solution that will be exploited and then worked around after no more than one term. The system needs some very foundational changes.

Break PAC voting. Break lobbies. Set term limits for everything. Remove voting for law enforcement, (voting for a sheriff? Is this the old west?). Outlaw 'for profit' incarceration. Expand the power of the IRS to come down on all levels of government conflict of interest with serious consequences.

Go all out and re-write the constitution, which is an absolute dinosaur. The system is so lawyered up, there is no movement available.

It doesn't bother anyone that all we hear about is the issue of the moment, and root causes are never addressed?

The news is all about things like the filibuster. Who gives a ####. Attack what made these stop-gap motions necessary. When I said breaking gridlock I meant bigger. It would help Canada and the UK if the US can invent and lead us all to a way of ending party voting blocks. If senators voted for their individual constituency, how many problems would disappear? Use your big brains America! Come on!

Would it require a grass roots movement supported by the President to do anything? Yes. But Trump almost did it, and he is an idiot.

[GirlySports]

You're complaining about voting blocks? Canada has party whips. When was the last 'free' vote in the house of commons that meant anything? A Joe Manchin doesn't exist in Canada.

If the Democrats are really serious about change, they need to win at local levels, not change all the federal rules.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

None of that really. Why work within a broken system?

Example : ending the filibuster. Who cares? That is a short term solution that will be exploited and then worked around after no more than one term. The system needs some very foundational changes.

Break PAC voting. Break lobbies. Set term limits for everything. Remove voting for law enforcement, (voting for a sheriff? Is this the old west?). Outlaw 'for profit' incarceration. Expand the power of the IRS to come down on all levels of government conflict of interest with serious consequences.

Go all out and re-write the constitution, which is an absolute dinosaur. The system is so lawyered up, there is no movement available.

It doesn't bother anyone that all we hear about is the issue of the moment, and root causes are never addressed?

The news is all about things like the filibuster. Who gives a ####. Attack what made these stop-gap motions necessary. When I said breaking gridlock I meant bigger. It would help Canada and the UK if the US can invent and lead us all to a way of ending party voting blocks. If senators voted for their individual constituency, how many problems would disappear? Use your big brains America! Come on!

Would it require a grass roots movement supported by the President to do anything? Yes. But Trump almost did it, and he is an idiot.

Not sure how you are going to get a grass roots movement when the US is so divisive on virtually all these things that you are pointing out.

As for Trump, I am not sure exactly what he also did, legislatively (and within the bounds of the law)? Beyond appointing Scotus judges, which was within his right to do so - the GOP Senators basically ####ed over democracy by refusing to even consider confirming Garland when Obama had 9 months left and then rammed through Comey-Barrett in under a month.

Just go and rewrite the Constitution? That's never, ever going to happen

I get the frustration, but you can't even get people to agree on facts, much less changing the US constitution.

One party is at least interested in a democratic process, imo, but you need two parties. When you don't have that, that's not democracy, that's authoritarianism...Which is what Trump aspired to.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Just go and rewrite the Constitution? That's never, ever going to happen.

Forever is a long time.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I fully admit I am excited to see this after watching the trailer for the 3-part docuseries, "Unprecedented".

https://twitter.com/user/status/1544353509369417728

That is going to be wild.

How are that clown and his cronies not in jail?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by SebC

Forever is a long time.

Sure, but it would take something major like a Civil War to rewrite the entire Constitution.

Amendments, sure, if you can manage to garner enough support for them... There are some people, including Originalists populating the SCOTUS and the circuit courts that would not be open to making major changes however, especially those that look to change or overturn the original ones

A good number of Americans, regardless of party, see the USA Constitution as a quasi-mythological document.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

Sure, but it would take something major like a Civil War to rewrite the entire Constitution.

Unrest, civil war, revolution, dissolution, etc. are possible consequences of an overly inflexible constitution. I don't think America is locked into that timeline, yet.

[CliffFletcher]

I honestly don’t see a path for institutional reform of U.S. politics at the federal level, for all the reasons cited by oldschoolcalgary. Change may happen over a span of decades as demographics change. But in the short-to-mid term, Democrats are going to have to focus their attention and energies at the state level, especially in swing states.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Change in the US will happen in one of two ways... both are up to Texas.

(1) Texas cedes from the union. The electoral votes and senate votes from Texas are gone and that's basically insurmountable for the GOP. They might get enough senate seats but the White House would no longer be an option. Things like education, where Texas supplies the books and thus controls curriculum across the nation would be gone. Oil lobby would be severely hurt, basically abolished. Texas no longer a part of the United States would be a big addition by substraction for the Democrats and anyone who doesn't make millions in year.

(2) People keep moving to big cities, which stay disporportionately Democrat to the point that the urban centres in Texas flip the state from Republican to Democrat. Texas is a lot more purple now than it has been in the last 70 years. Cruz won a tight race, the Governitoral race looks like it'll be close ... in Texas. This would be due to cities like Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, etc getting bigger and bigger, with big cities being more liberal and thus more Democrat, it's a huge advantage for the Democrats. If that trend continues the GOP will be in a world of trouble.

Essentially the Republicans have to act NOW for to control the US and make their facist utopia. They played the long game for this very moment. It won't last based on demographic changes. They risked it all on the small states and Texas carrying them through. It worked. The gamble paid off. If they can't continue to rig the game and make the system even more undemocratic then they're going to fall hard. Keep in mind they aren't going to fall hard because of the brilliance of the Democrats, it'll be due to their scheme imploding.

[Snuffleupagus]

Texas is not leaving the union, it's illegal under the constitution.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Texas is not leaving the union, it's illegal under the constitution.

The Constitution is all about interpretation. Maybe it commands that Texas MUST leave the union. Let's get some evangelicals on this.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Texas is not leaving the union, it's illegal under the constitution.

It is illegal but if a state voted to leave by a good margin, they may bicker about it for a while but eventually they would leave if they wanted to bad enough (i.e. violence, etc)


One quibble with Maritime's post - Texas vote did for Jimmy Carter in 1976 so it has been less than 70 years. Democrats also controlled the state senate up until 1996 and the house up until 2003.

[Azure]

Texas leaving the union is just more squabbling while a Democrat is POTUS.

Similar to Alberta.

End of the day, while special interests and lobbyists dominate the political agenda, I'm not sure much will ever change.

The Democrats will also never do anything 'big' about abortion because the demographic breakdown is not as clear cut as they'd like you to believe. As an example, wanting to ban abortion beyond 15 weeks is not a 50 / 50 split in yay & nays among Democrats & Republicans.

The other thing that might happen is someone like Cuban or Bezos runs for President.

I'd say Biden has been an unmitigated disaster. I don't think the country is at this point if Clinton had become POTUS. Leadership actually requires someone with leadership abilities, not someone who barely knows what day of the week it is.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Pretty much peak Murica that despite this man being severely ill, through years of brain trauma and other issues, he's got a decent shot to actually be a United States Senator

https://twitter.com/user/status/1546476045112676352

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Pretty much peak Murica that despite this man being severely ill, through years of brain trauma and other issues, he's got a decent shot to actually be a United States Senator

https://twitter.com/user/status/1546476045112676352

The fact that Trump supported some god awful candidates for senate is giving the Democrats hope that they can actually hold the senate despite the bad looking results everywhere else.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Pretty much peak Murica that despite this man being severely ill, through years of brain trauma and other issues, he's got a decent shot to actually be a United States Senator

https://twitter.com/user/status/1546476045112676352

One thing you gotta give America credit for is that there certainly seems to be hope that anyone can make it there.

[Zulu29]

He’s…joking…right?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

Texas leaving the union is just more squabbling while a Democrat is POTUS.

Similar to Alberta.

End of the day, while special interests and lobbyists dominate the political agenda, I'm not sure much will ever change.

The Democrats will also never do anything 'big' about abortion because the demographic breakdown is not as clear cut as they'd like you to believe. As an example, wanting to ban abortion beyond 15 weeks is not a 50 / 50 split in yay & nays among Democrats & Republicans.

The other thing that might happen is someone like Cuban or Bezos runs for President.

I'd say Biden has been an unmitigated disaster. I don't think the country is at this point if Clinton had become POTUS. Leadership actually requires someone with leadership abilities, not someone who barely knows what day of the week it is.

A more likely scenario if some areas of the state became stalwart Democrat territory would be for Texas to split up. As a condition of their annexation, they have the option to spawn off territory into new states and create 5 states (4 new states, plus whatever was left of Texas). Such a move could theoretically increase the Republican foothold in the region. You could end up with one or two Democrat states, but 3 or 4 Republican states. Hard to imagine that actually happening, but it is at least legally possible without violence.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ng-with-texas/