Politics Thread - Ka-tet of 19

[Guard Dog]

One thought on the Green & Libertarian Parties. There is no doubt third parties have played the role of spoiler far more often than actually electing their candidates. Especially on the national scale. Bill Clinton would not have been President if not for Ross Perot and the 1990's would have played out very differently. Assuming of course Perot voters would have supported Bush. Al Gore would have been President in 2000 if not for Ralph Nader and the 2000's would have played out differently. Assuming of course Nader voters broke for Gore.

 

Here is the thing, you cannot assume that will happen. The Green Party is a real political party with real supporters who have a real agenda that the believe in. That agenda is championed by no one else other than the Green Party. The Democrat Party does not align with the Green on a lot of things. Because of that they have no right to expect the Greens to vote for Democrats. Ditto for the Libertarians and Republicans. The Republican Party, while not hostile to Libertarians, are not exactly welcoming either. What Republicans want and what Libertarians want are very different things that share some occasional similarities. Libertarians are not Republicans and Republicans have no right to expect Libertarians to support them.

 

If the two major parties want to court support from the two larger minor parties then they should try to adopt some of their platform. Just saying that the alternative is worse is not a good selling point. I have held my nose and voted for a lot of Republicans I disliked to foil Democrats I hated. I will never do that again. In 2016 I voted for Gary Johnson. Not because I believed in him or wanted him to be President but because that vote enabled the LP and that is a cause I DO believe in. I hated Hillary Clinton and had no respect at all for Donald Trump. Why should I cast my vote, one thing that is truly mine, for one of them? Because the other was worse? No, not good enough. The lesser evil is still evil. Had I been told my one vote would have decided the election between Clinton & Trump I still would have voted for Johnson. And I would have looked anyone in the eye who screamed about it and told them to go f--k themselves.

[Guard Dog]

They were doing it to the extreme, that was the problem. Although the DACA thing was born more out of desperation to do something on immigration when Congress repeatedly failed to get anything done.

 

That Congress didn't try to do anything much about the excess EOs is Congress's fault, I'm pretty sure that there were some Democrats who thought that some of that should have been done legislatively, but hey, hyperpartianship.

 

edit: You know, in hindsight, I'm a bit surprised he didn't attempt to do something about guns via EO, not that it neccesarily would have been a good idea.

That does NOT make it right? Can't you see that. "I'm sorry American people" I didn't want to dissolve the congress and cancel elections but you keep sending up people who oppose me". Philosophically there is no difference. But I agree 100% that Congress rolled over and let him get away with it. That is on them.

[ShadySands]

Bush Sr is the only recent president to have less executive orders than Barry O and he only had one term

Ronald Reagan 381
George H. W. Bush 166
Bill Clinton 364
George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama 276
Donald Trump 82 

Trump could end up with less especially if he is a one term president

[Guard Dog]

The number of executive orders is not what we should be looking at. The Executive Branch does have the authority to do certain things. It's what those order DO that we need to focus on. Obama used and EO to modify a law that had been passed by Congress, signed by him, and even adjudicated on by the SCOTUS after all that. The President does not have that power. Only now, in a practical sense, they do because he did it and got away with it.

[Volourn]

Green parTy members should be mad at Democrats. Don't know what is at stake? Voting demo is selfish and allowqs Trump to win. Vote Green.  Only idiots, tools,. and selfish people fvote Demo knowing what is at stake. A vote for Democrats is a vote for Republicans. LMAO

Edited August 8, 2018 by Volourn

[smjjames]

On third parties being spoilers: Yeah, that's the problem with trying to scapegoat third parties as spoilers, you simply can't know what they would have voted for as a second choice (even if it was a remote 'never in a million years' second choice) without asking those people who they would have otherwise voted for. I saw an infographic recently (forget where I saw it though) showing how Hillary would have fared under different percentages of third party votes going to her and she would have had to get more than half of them to actually win the Electoral College or something. Ranked voting or something similar would likely solve some of that.

 

Also going to note that the third parties tend to only get scapegoated as spoilers when the vote is by a narrower margin than the number of third party votes (of which the Ohio 12th district is just the most recent example) or take up such a significant chunk of the vote that it appears like candidate x would have won with those votes going to them (the 1990's example you gave, the 2000 election, and of course, 2016).

 

 

 

They were doing it to the extreme, that was the problem. Although the DACA thing was born more out of desperation to do something on immigration when Congress repeatedly failed to get anything done.

 

That Congress didn't try to do anything much about the excess EOs is Congress's fault, I'm pretty sure that there were some Democrats who thought that some of that should have been done legislatively, but hey, hyperpartianship.

 

edit: You know, in hindsight, I'm a bit surprised he didn't attempt to do something about guns via EO, not that it neccesarily would have been a good idea.

That does NOT make it right? Can't you see that. "I'm sorry American people" I didn't want to dissolve the congress and cancel elections but you keep sending up people who oppose me". Philosophically there is no difference. But I agree 100% that Congress rolled over and let him get away with it. That is on them.

 

 

I get your point.

 

 

Bush Sr is the only recent president to have less executive orders than Barry O and he only had one term

Ronald Reagan 381
George H. W. Bush 166
Bill Clinton 364
George W. Bush 291
Barack Obama 276
Donald Trump 82 

Trump could end up with less especially if he is a one term president

 

Huh, and the Republicans were complaining that he was doing too many? GD has a point in that it's not the numbers, it's how they were done.

 

As for Trump, didn't he pledge that he wouldn't govern via EO the way Obama did? Especially since the Republicans complained about the numbers (even though Clinton and Reagan did ~100 more than Obama) and reversed a whole bunch at the start of Trump's term. It could also just be a difference in governing style with Trump delegating it out.

Edited August 8, 2018 by smjjames

[Agiel]

South Carolina manufacturer says it's closing plant over Trump tariffs.

 

They say experience is the best teacher...

 

 

https://youtu.be/sBffNiUOeiA?t=6s

[smjjames]

And a few months ago, the largest nail manufacturer in the US was in danger of going belly up, and still are. Meanwhile, the US and China are both ramping up the trade war.

 

Makes you wonder how long it'll take before problems start showing up in ways that Trump actually appreciates because right now he is all ruby tinted glasses (same as rose tinted, just turned up to 11) over the positive (though less than expected) job growth and the 4% growth in GDP. He's also boasted that we could see 5% growth.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Twitter is simply a reflection of our broken society. Everybody thinks their opinion is important 

 

how dare they

[Gfted1]

 

Twitter is simply a reflection of our broken society. Everybody thinks their opinion is important 

 

how dare they

 

 

Ikr? Its our own fault though, they've been raised to think that they are special and unique. And the sound of their own voice thrills them to no end.

[Guard Dog]

If I sent a copy of this book to Donald Trump do you think he's read it? Or have someone read it to him?

 

[213374U]

 

 

Twitter is simply a reflection of our broken society. Everybody thinks their opinion is important

 

how dare they

 

 

Ikr? Its our own fault though, they've been raised to think that they are special and unique. And the sound of their own voice thrills them to no end.

 

 

Ah yes, I too yearn for bygone days when peasants knew their place and were content to let only their betters speak.

 

But seriously. It's kinda funny that you choose to believe that a bunch of cherry-picked twatter posts are "a reflection of our broken society" but, for instance, the majority of opinions presented here, are not.

[Guard Dog]

FWIW I posted that strictly for the chuckles. But the rancor towards the Green voters was a nice segue into what I wanted to say in my post # 802

[Gfted1]

Ah yes, I too yearn for bygone days when peasants knew their place and were content to let only their betters speak.

Well you know the saying; opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one and they all stink. True then and true now, mine included.

 

But seriously. It's kinda funny that you choose to believe that a bunch of cherry-picked twatter posts are "a reflection of our broken society" but, for instance, the majority of opinions presented here, are not.

Are you pulling the "you didn't comment on so you obviously support it"?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

Twitter is simply a reflection of our broken society. Everybody thinks their opinion is important

 

 how dare they

 

Ikr? Its our own fault though, they've been raised to think that they are special and unique. And the sound of their own voice thrills them to no end.

 

 

Ah yes, I too yearn for bygone days when peasants knew their place and were content to let only their betters speak.

Just wait a few years and the ancap-altright coalition will bring it back.

[213374U]

 

But seriously. It's kinda funny that you choose to believe that a bunch of cherry-picked twatter posts are "a reflection of our broken society" but, for instance, the majority of opinions presented here, are not.

Are you pulling the "you didn't comment on <some particular subject> so you obviously support it"?

 

I'm pulling... what now?

 

I mean that if you choose to ascribe a high representativity value to a series of selected posts from source A (twitter) but refuse to do the same for unfiltered content from source B (obsidz forum), you are being inconsistent. That's all.

[ShadySands]

You don't have to look very hard to find complaints of Obama "ruling" by EOs. Most people I've talked to actually believed he had the most, if not in all US history then in recent history. Very few actually knew of the specific orders that they hated him for but it was usually the immigration or Fed minimum wage ones. Of course this probably says more about me and the folks that I know more than society as a whole.

As to the Green votes in the Ohio special election, last I checked there weren't enough to change the lead but rather enough to trigger an automatic recount. I got a lot of heat last election for voting Green too even though my state went to Clinton but just like GD I don't think I would have changed my mind if my vote would have been the deciding factor. Wasn't that a Kevin Costner movie? Anyways, 3rd party voters make a better punching bag than the much larger group who don't bother to vote at all.

 

Man, I updated my phone to the new Android P yesterday and my mobile posting has become exactly 37% worse

Edited August 8, 2018 by ShadySands

[smjjames]

The Republicans (and Trump) also reversed a whole bunch of regulation based ones at the start of Trumps term. The regulation EO reversals were the ones that got the most attention, so, I'm not sure what EOs that didn't have to do with regulation they tried to reverse.

 

"Anyways, 3rd party voters make a better punching bag than the much larger group who don't bother to vote at all."

 

Probably because it's a quantifiable number that can be more easily outraged against since you can point to actual results than a nebulous amount that didn't take part in the results. Also tribalism.

Edited August 8, 2018 by smjjames

[Gfted1]

I'm pulling... what now?

 

I mean that if you choose to ascribe a high representativity value to a series of selected posts from source A (twitter) but refuse to do the same for unfiltered content from source B (obsidz forum), you are being inconsistent. That's all.

Weird, man. Refuse? You are Gromnir and I claim my 5 Durgan Ignots.   

 

Btw, you can fill an entire nother internet with things I have not commented on.

[213374U]

 

I'm pulling... what now?

 

I mean that if you choose to ascribe a high representativity value to a series of selected posts from source A (twitter) but refuse to do the same for unfiltered content from source B (obsidz forum), you are being inconsistent. That's all.

Weird, man. Refuse? You are Gromnir and I claim my 5 Durgan Ignots.   

 

Btw, you can fill an entire nother internet with things I have not commented on.

 

Yep. Maybe not refuse as that word assumes a conscious effort on your part. But in any case you are focusing on a given sample to draw broad conclusions about "our broken society", while disregarding other(s), without offering any explanation as to why one medium is relevant but others aren't. Maybe it's just that your experience with social networks reflects your interactions with people IRL so you are naturally inclined to believe that's people in general... if so, you have my sympathies.

 

Not sure what this tangent about stuff you haven't commented on has to do with anything, either. You're tilting at windmills.

[Gfted1]

But in any case you are focusing on a given sample to draw broad conclusions about "our broken society", while disregarding other(s), without offering any explanation as to why one medium is relevant but others aren't.

Stay with me here...why would I offer "explanations" about every possible medium that humans communicate in? Did you know that I also have not explained why people who are whining in text form occasionally annoys me? I hope that doesn't trigger you too hard but that's the way I roll.

[Malcador]

Ikr? Its our own fault though, they've been raised to think that they are special and unique. And the sound of their own voice thrills them to no end.

Don't really think this is nothing new, people share opinions on everything all the time - it's just now that instead of being restricted to the pub or the basement of a buddy's house it's now reaching everywhere. Usual complaints by N that N+1 are hopeless.

[Gromnir]

You don't have to look very hard to find complaints of Obama "ruling" by EOs. Most people I've talked to actually believed he had the most, if not in all US history then in recent history. Very few actually knew of the specific orders that they hated him for but it was usually the immigration or Fed minimum wage ones. Of course this probably says more about me and the folks that I know more than society as a whole.

 

As to the Green votes in the Ohio special election, last I checked there weren't enough to change the lead but rather enough to trigger an automatic recount. I got a lot of heat last election for voting Green too even though my state went to Clinton but just like GD I don't think I would have changed my mind if my vote would have been the deciding factor. Wasn't that a Kevin Costner movie? Anyways, 3rd party voters make a better punching bag than the much larger group who don't bother to vote at all.

 

Man, I updated my phone to the new Android P yesterday and my mobile posting has become exactly 37% worse

 

 

it isn't difficult for Gromnir to add to the list o' Obama executive orders which offend beyond immigration and minimum wage, but such stuff is in our wheelhouse as it were.  expansion o' domestic surveillance by means o' order were a particular troublesome example, but is hardly solitary.   can laundry list stuff if need be.  *shrug* in any event, am thinking it is a common mistake to get over invested in the executive orders while ignoring regulations and, to a lesser degree, memorandum and proclamations.   am gonna suggest Obama did more to intrude on legislative domain than any executive since LBJ, and he were bold and unapologetic 'bout it.  his pen and a phone comments were deserved criticized. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/executive-action/

 

whether you like universal health care, increased minimum wages, changes to immigration, net neutrality along with some o' the more sinister stuff Obama tired to slip past Congress (and were often failing to do so-- no other recent President, regardless o' party affiliation, has had such a dismal record when facing SCOTUS review) the chief executive's role is not to legislate... and were not just executive orders which Obama were using to transform the Presidency. 

 

when Schumer and Pelosi were cheering on Obama as he found ways to marginalize obstructionist (*snort*) republicans, Mitch McConnell (and Gromnir) were warning o' the eventual day o' reckoning.  took little imagination to foresee what would happen when a republican President were sitting in the oval office and had access to a pen and a phone.  

 

thank goodness for the relative impotence o' the current chief executive and the common sense o' a few republicans.  more than once during the recent Prez elections we opined how trump would have much difficulty advancing his policy agenda.  much stuff promised by trump, such as a muslim ban, were patent Unconstitutional, and most other stuff were requiring legislative action.  seeing as how trump were not a consensus builder, we predicted a certain 'mount o' Presidential impotence... and thank goodness we were right.  a more skilled chief executive with advantages o' a majority in both houses woulda' been punishing democrats for the excesses o' Obama. is also a relief republican leadership has chosen to put a stop to some o' the madness o' the previous administration.  trump failure to overcome filibuster has not been met by Congressional effort to change rules such as happened when Obama appointees were being routine held-up.  

 

regardless, numbers of executive orders is extreme misleading even if many conservatives reflexive complain 'bout numbers.  too many conservatives nowadays is only capable o' parroting what they see on fox news or read in a trump tweet... and we all know just how accurate such sources is.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/01/president-trump-has-made-4229-false-or-misleading-claims-in-558-days/?utm_term=.7408a268d4c7

 

two quick asides: 

 

1) Obama, a Con Law prof complaints o' gridlock bothered us a bit

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/102573-politics-thread-ka-tet-of-19/?p=2076988

 

he knew better.

 

2) Obama didn't wake up on the first day o' his Presidency and single-handed transform the office 'cause Congressional indolence in recent decades made it increasing necessary for chief executives to do what Congress were failing to do.  

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Amentep]

See new thread.