General US Politics

[Dr. Tarrasque]

2 hours ago, Slumber said:

I don't think this Elizabeth Warren thing is the dumbest thing to happen during this administration, but it's up there.

It's standard affair: no accountability, lying, alternative facts, "the president didn't mean what he said", yada yada.

BUILD THE WALL AND DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BECAUSE WE THINK THEY DON'T PAY TAXES, BUT GOD BLESS TRUMP AND THOSE CLOSE TO HIM WHO HAVEN'T PAYED TAXES FOR YEARS

MAGA!

Edited October 15, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Slumber]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

It's standard affair: no accountability, lying, alternative facts, "the president didn't mean what he said", yada yada.

BUILD THE WALL AND DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BECAUSE WE THINK THEY DON'T PAY TAXES, BUT GOD BLESS TRUMP AND THOSE CLOSE TO HIM WHO HAVEN'T PAYED TAXES FOR YEARS

MAGA!

All of those things are dumb and stupid, but they're dumb and stupid for a reason... mostly.

This Elizabeth Warren thing is dumb for no reason. Trump was being dumb, petty and racist to her for no reason, said some stupid stuff about it in public at rallies, of which there's tons of evidence, and he's still denying it.

There's no reason for this to be as dumb as it is. It just... is.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Well no, there is a reason for that being as dumb as it is and it's because a complete moron was elected. When a moron is elected, you have to expect the moron to say and do dumb things (it still gets frustrating as fuck, no doubt). When I found out Trump had won, I didn't think much of it and was just glad the election was over thinking "He can't possibly be that dumb". No joke, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and just decided to closely watch what goes on and see how bad it could be.

I was wrong and this presidency is all the reason I need to support the abolition of the Electoral College.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Interdimensional Observer]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I was wrong and this presidency is all the reason I need to support the abolition of the Electoral College.

Insofar as I remember reading back in a high school textbook, the Electoral College was invented to prevent the stupidity of the masses. The Founding Fathers being elitists who curtailed King Mob via limiting the direct hand of the masses. The Presidency having a popular vote, but ultimately chosen by the electors, the federal courts nominated by the President and appointed by the Senate, and originally the Senate was chosen by state legislatures. Only the House, half a branch out of three, was directly elected.

If the textbook was true, then the irony.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

22 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Insofar as I remember reading back in a high school textbook, the Electoral College was invented to prevent the stupidity of the masses. The Founding Fathers being elitists who curtailed King Mob via limiting the direct hand of the masses. The Presidency having a popular vote, but ultimately chosen by the electors, the federal courts nominated by the President and appointed by the Senate, and originally the Senate was chosen by state legislatures. Only the House, half a branch out of three, was directly elected.

If the textbook was true, then the irony.

It's probably not wrong because although folks in the US loved to tout how good a Democracy is, the history of the country suggests that the country has become more of a democracy as the years have passed since in the beginning, the founding fathers did indeed hate the idea of the masses being able to vote and preferred to leave that right to just the wealthy or folks who owned land. Nevermiind the years 1920 and 1965...

The Electoral College system is just bad and in almost half of the states, the electors don't even have to vote for the person their state voted for. Republicans want it to stay because they know they're becoming increasingly unpopular and it's how they have hopes of winning the Presidential election.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[The Geek]

What rubs me the wrong way most about the Electoral College is how the electoral votes for each state are handed out in a "winner take all" fashion.  For instance I live in Oregon which has been solid blue for quite a long time now and all of its electoral votes always go to the Democratic candidate for president.  However, there's a pretty sizable portion of the population that is Republican, mostly living on the east side of the Cascade Mountains.  However, they're vastly outnumbered by Democrats who live on the coast and in the valley so they pretty much don't get a say in the presidential election.  Same story in Washington and California, and I'm sure there are plenty of other states where one side's majority completely silences the other side.

[Punished Dayni]

Okay, so while as an outsider the Electoral College is a quirk of the past that doesn't hold in my opinion, even within it there's some ways to do something. Maine from what I remember does divide the districts up (so that each district gets to vote the way they intended, preventing an R district being represented by a D on their vote), which should really be the minimum if the presidency is going to have a system that allows for stuff like 1 person, 1.12 vote.

[FrostyFireMage]

If people never believe women or stand up for them why does the Duluth model exist?

[Time the Crestfallen]

15 minutes ago, FrostyFireMage said:

If people never believe women or stand up for them why does the Duluth model exist?

Comparing societal approaches to rape and domestic violence is comparing apples and oranges mate, never-mind the fact that the Duluth model receives it's fair share of criticism.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

3 hours ago, The Geek said:

What rubs me the wrong way most about the Electoral College is how the electoral votes for each state are handed out in a "winner take all" fashion.  For instance I live in Oregon which has been solid blue for quite a long time now and all of its electoral votes always go to the Democratic candidate for president.  However, there's a pretty sizable portion of the population that is Republican, mostly living on the east side of the Cascade Mountains.  However, they're vastly outnumbered by Democrats who live on the coast and in the valley so they pretty much don't get a say in the presidential election.  Same story in Washington and California, and I'm sure there are plenty of other states where one side's majority completely silences the other side.

Exactly. It makes most of the country's vote not matter leaving the Presidential election mostly up to the swing states when the President is supposed to represent the entire country. If you're in a state that typically votes for the opposite party, you have no incentive to go out and vote and in the 24 states mentioned above, the electors have no obligation to honor the state's vote even if by some miracle that "deep red" or "deep blue" state suddenly flipped.

If we want to incentivize the country to vote, we should make Election day a holiday instead of Columbus day and make everyone's vote equal.

2 hours ago, Dayni said:

Okay, so while as an outsider the Electoral College is a quirk of the past that doesn't hold in my opinion, even within it there's some ways to do something. Maine from what I remember does divide the districts up (so that each district gets to vote the way they intended, preventing an R district being represented by a D on their vote), which should really be the minimum if the presidency is going to have a system that allows for stuff like 1 person, 1.12 vote.

There's certainly ways to make it work but the 2 political parties have effectively made changes to secure different states and create the mess that it is. Abolishing it completely may be quicker than getting all states to follow Maine's model where its electoral votes are distributed fairly, but then you also need Gerrymandering to end in all states and draw the districts fairly which is completely subjective... it's just a mess and the arguments for keeping the Electoral College don't hold up today.

Amusingly...

Edited October 16, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Johann]

2 hours ago, FrostyFireMage said:

If people never believe women or stand up for them why does the Duluth model exist?

You're not paying attention. People in positions of power (whether judges, politicians, employers, etc) don't believe/stand up for women in large enough numbers. It's bad enough when a regular person doesn't believe a victim, but it's way worse when someone with the capacity to change things says "well, what can ya do"

4 hours ago, The Geek said:

What rubs me the wrong way most about the Electoral College is how the electoral votes for each state are handed out in a "winner take all" fashion.  For instance I live in Oregon which has been solid blue for quite a long time now and all of its electoral votes always go to the Democratic candidate for president.  However, there's a pretty sizable portion of the population that is Republican, mostly living on the east side of the Cascade Mountains.  However, they're vastly outnumbered by Democrats who live on the coast and in the valley so they pretty much don't get a say in the presidential election.  Same story in Washington and California, and I'm sure there are plenty of other states where one side's majority completely silences the other side.

Conversely, if we look at the whole nation's allotted EC votes, the voting power of middle America is significantly higher than on the coasts. Giving it all to the winner of the popular vote would be the clearest way to ensure that each individual vote matters. Of course, some will argue that it gives politicians little reason to reach out to smaller communities, though the flipside to that is how currently, they really only give a shit about swing states during campaign times, which doesn't seem to actually do much to help those communities anyway.

The ironic thing is how many Republican politicians routinely screw over their own constituents, and so these poor red states are often voting against their own interests.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

46 minutes ago, Johann said:

Of course, some will argue that it gives politicians little reason to reach out to smaller communities, though the flipside to that is how currently, they really only give a shit about swing states during campaign times, which doesn't seem to actually do much to help those communities anyway.

I'd say they're exaggerating the outcomes when they bring up that argument. We as a country have shown that we're capable of empathy for those less fortunate (ie outrage on separation policy) and in a direct democracy system, if there are states/districts that are suffering and feel like they're not being represented, there's more incentive for someone to step forth and change that as well as the constituents having more reason to vote get rid of their representatives and senator who aren't doing shit for them (Mitch McConnel, 30+ years for Kentucky, 'nuff said). To say that a direct democracy would screw up rural communities because states with the largest cities have more power is to claim that all Americans are selfish and ignore the very fact that the current system and presidency IS damaging rural communities, fostering bigotry in people to have them act against their own interest and oppressing the majority that voted in opposition of Trump and those that didn't care to vote because the current system provides no real incentive to do so.

[XRay]

There is a graph showing how people feel about the Me Too movement on the Economist.

There is rising backlash against the movement primarily from conservatives. What is kind of scary is that women overall are starting to be skeptical against victims.

Personally, my answer falls on the Democratic side: I do not think false accusations are a big deal, complaining about sexual harassment is not causing trouble (in fact, I would argue that staying silent does even more harm), and men who committed sexual assault should not be allowed to keep their jobs today. Actually, I would go even a step further and argue that rape and sexual assault are on the same level as murder, and the statute of limitations should never apply to violent crimes. Just as I do not want my family, friends, and people I love to be anywhere near serial killers, I do not want them to be near rapists and sexual predators.

If Kavanaugh is found to be guilty of sexual assault, life imprisonment is the minimum amount of punishment that the court should give in my opinion.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

4 hours ago, XRay said:

There is a graph showing how people feel about the Me Too movement on the Economist.

There is rising backlash against the movement primarily from conservatives. What is kind of scary is that women overall are starting to be skeptical against victims.

Personally, my answer falls on the Democratic side: I do not think false accusations are a big deal, complaining about sexual harassment is not causing trouble (in fact, I would argue that staying silent does even more harm), and men who committed sexual assault should not be allowed to keep their jobs today. Actually, I would go even a step further and argue that rape and sexual assault are on the same level as murder, and the statute of limitations should never apply to violent crimes. Just as I do not want my family, friends, and people I love to be anywhere near serial killers, I do not want them to be near rapists and sexual predators.

If Kavanaugh is found to be guilty of sexual assault, life imprisonment is the minimum amount of punishment that the court should give in my opinion.

That's sad to see. Literally a representation of propaganda making you go against your own interests, assuming your interests include that men of power are held accountable for criminal activity.

 

@Captain Karnage

 

[Slumber]

7 hours ago, XRay said:

There is a graph showing how people feel about the Me Too movement on the Economist.

There is rising backlash against the movement primarily from conservatives. What is kind of scary is that women overall are starting to be skeptical against victims.

Personally, my answer falls on the Democratic side: I do not think false accusations are a big deal, complaining about sexual harassment is not causing trouble (in fact, I would argue that staying silent does even more harm), and men who committed sexual assault should not be allowed to keep their jobs today. Actually, I would go even a step further and argue that rape and sexual assault are on the same level as murder, and the statute of limitations should never apply to violent crimes. Just as I do not want my family, friends, and people I love to be anywhere near serial killers, I do not want them to be near rapists and sexual predators.

If Kavanaugh is found to be guilty of sexual assault, life imprisonment is the minimum amount of punishment that the court should give in my opinion.

I'd actually feel more safe with a family living next to somebody who has murdered somebody as opposed to somebody who raped/sexually assaulted somebody.

And as for serial killers... A serial killer's not gonna be stupid enough to murder their neighbors. They'd get caught in no time.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Slumber

[Tryhard]

https://www.newsweek.com/deficit-budget-tax-plan-social-security-medicaid-medicare-entitlement-1172941

Is anyone really surprised? Though really that should be: cut them more.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Edgelord

[Time the Crestfallen]

"It’s disappointing, but it’s not a Republican problem," McConnell said of the deficit, which grew 17 percent to $779 billion in fiscal year 2018. McConnell explained to Bloomberg that "it’s a bipartisan problem."

I felt a blood vessel in my eye burst reading this one.

[FrostyFireMage]

If somebody is raped they have the ability to eventually overcome their trauma. 

If somebody is murdered they're freaking dead.

[Slumber]

35 minutes ago, FrostyFireMage said:

If somebody is raped they have the ability to eventually overcome their trauma. 

If somebody is murdered they're freaking dead.

On the flip side, people who have been raped will have to live with their trauma for their entire lives if they're not able to overcome it, and even people who have "overcome" it will probably have lingering effects. It probably won't go away entirely.

Obviously, it'll vary from person to person, but most societies these days depict death as preferable to rape for this reason. It's emotional, mental and physical torture.

54 minutes ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

I felt a blood vessel in my eye burst reading this one.

You know they'd be blaming the democrats if they had control of a single portion of the government.

Though to be fair, it's midterms. You'd struggle to find anyone who'd be willing to admit fault during midterms.

[Time the Crestfallen]

10 minutes ago, Slumber said:

You know they'd be blaming the democrats if they had control of a single portion of the government.

Though to be fair, it's midterms. You'd struggle to find anyone who'd be willing to admit fault during midterms.

Well as we can clearly see, they blame the Democrats even when they control every branch of the government. It's like they forgot they're not the opposition party or something.

[Johann]

9 hours ago, XRay said:

the statute of limitations should never apply to violent crimes.

This x1000000

[Captain Karnage]

@Dr. Tarrasque Thank you, it's good that that news outlet interviewed her. I get how raw emotion can affect what someone is saying

[XRay]

4 hours ago, FrostyFireMage said:

If somebody is raped they have the ability to eventually overcome their trauma. 

If somebody is murdered they're freaking dead.

Living with the trauma is like dying on the inside. People can overcome it, but it is like living with all your limbs chopped off being bound to wheelchair. Not everyone wants to live through that kind of crap. Obviously, most victims are not going to go kill themselves since living is strong pretty strong instinct, but between dying via head shot and living through hell, I would pick head shot.

4 hours ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

"It’s disappointing, but it’s not a Republican problem," McConnell said of the deficit, which grew 17 percent to $779 billion in fiscal year 2018. McConnell explained to Bloomberg that "it’s a bipartisan problem."

I felt a blood vessel in my eye burst reading this one.

If I were McConnell, I would have just said that it has been a great year and we spent more money on the stuff that mattered, and the rising deficit is the proof that tax dollars are being spent properly. Might as well bullshit more at this point.

Edited October 17, 2018 by XRay

[Johann]

According to the Democratic members of the Senate Budget Committee, we could've been running a surplus were it not for the excessive defense spending, wars, and Bush/Trump tax cuts.

Quote

What contributed to the $779 billion deficit in 2018?

• Bush Tax Cuts: $488 billion [Includes costs of subsequent expansions and extensions. Interest costs are factored in. See Methodology section in the pdf for more.]
• Trump Tax Cuts: $164 billion
• Direct costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $127 billion [solely includes Overseas Contingency Operations appropriations]
• Base defense increases: $156 billion

Full pdf for those interested in the methodology and sources

EDIT: looking at the sources, some of those opportunity cost numbers are based on some specific assumptions, like if Bernie could pass his College For All Act, so some of those numbers might be a little suspect. The main argument about the deficit contributions seems to hold up though.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Johann

[Phoenix Wright]

4 hours ago, Slumber said:

On the flip side, people who have been raped will have to live with their trauma for their entire lives if they're not able to overcome it, and even people who have "overcome" it will probably have lingering effects. It probably won't go away entirely.

Obviously, it'll vary from person to person, but most societies these days depict death as preferable to rape for this reason. It's emotional, mental and physical torture.

 

 

43 minutes ago, XRay said:

Living with the trauma is like dying on the inside. People can overcome it, but it is like living with all your limbs chopped off being bound to wheelchair. Not everyone wants to live through that kind of crap. Obviously, most victims are not going to go kill themselves since living is strong pretty strong instinct, but between dying via head shot and living through hell, I would pick head shot.

If I were McConnell, I would have just said that it has been a great year and we spent more money on the stuff that mattered, and the rising deficit is the proof that tax dollars are being spent properly. Might as well bullshit more at this point.

4

this has been thrown around a lot, but i just don't think it's true. anecdotally, i know it isn't true and in the general case i find that there are sufficient ways to deal with trauma s.t. the victim is not "dying every day."

replace the word rape with [crime that causes trauma]. would you be singing the same tune?