The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

A few thoughts...

I also support taking money out of politics, and public funding of campaigns would be a good idea, but it is riddled with potential for abuse. Who decides who gets public funding? Petition signature counts? You think we have vote recount issues today, see what that brings. They would have to examine each and every signature on a petition to verify that it is a legitimate voter in that district. You can't let existing officials do it, they would no doubt play favorites.

It's flat amount, congress says "X amount" and that's what they all get. The public has no say in it.

Best way to accomplish it would be to require licensed broadcast outlets to provide time to candidates as part of the "public trust" aspect of their license.

You have argued directly against this point.

But even that has issues; broadcast media penetration into the market is shrinking and will continue to do so, reaching less and less of the population. And you can't enforce this on cable, web or print media because they aren't licensed.

You didn't mind it when you were crowing about the "destruction of left wing media on radio by the right"
Make up your mind.

And even if you surmount all the possible problems, what's to stop a media outlet from covering a candidate as news anyway? Trying to stop that would bring in freedom of speech/freedom of the press issues. Restricting a wealthy candidate from spending his own money to promote himself would also infringe upon freedom of speech.

No, it would not. Remove Citizens united, and you can actually have flat funding.

What would you suggest as a means of replacing the two party system? There is no rule in place that prevents a third party as it stands now. In fact, there are several smaller parties in existence already. Do you intend that government tell people how to vote to get a larger 3rd party participation? That would work out well. But how else would you force more people to vote for the smaller parties?

Truth is, you don't have a two party system, you have a system that has been effectively made a 2 party system. Your state has 4,5,10 contenders, each gets X amount determined by congress (or a lesser amount by state legislature) to spend on campaigning, no more.

And while I was delighted that some Democrat suggested reverting to PAYGO, it's a great way to put the brakes on their pipe dreams, (I will not speculate as to what might be in the pipes they are smoking) I was really surprised that it was a Democrat who brought the idea up.

So you are surprised an initiative, brought in by democrats, lapsed under republicans then brought back by democrats, is being put forward by democrats?
Wow.

[Gatefan1976]

You're missing the entire argument about the difference between ability to block entry without a wall and the political will to do so.

Obama deported more illegals than anyone, I'd say his will was fine on the issue.

[SoulReaver]

Any society has to have rules, laws and enforcement mechanisms or it is not a society, it is anarchy. And beside, Liberals have just as much a fondness for law enforcement. Such as laws requiring the payment of taxes and fees to finance their pipe dreams.

as opposed to taxes against the people? (to finance Patriot Act, useless walls, or civil assets forfeiture)

Or rules governing what can be said in public. How many people have been silenced in colleges because they don't agree with their liberal masters who run the place?

colleges are not the law
on the other hand Kathy Griffin was silenced by Government
proving once again GOP's the ultimate enemy of the 1st amendment

[Annoyed]

It's flat amount, congress says "X amount" and that's what they all get. The public has no say in it.

Not "how much", but WHO qualifies?

You didn't mind it when you were crowing about the "destruction of left wing media on radio by the right"
Make up your mind.

Totally different. Left wing talk failed due to the lack of audience, so there were no advertisers willing to buy time on stations carrying it; it failed in the marketplace.

This is different. Due to social and technology changes, BROADCAST (over the air) news and media, particularly TV networks have been losing viewers. First, the change to digital broadcasting in 2009 drastically reduced the viewable range limit for TV stations. Analog, you could get 60 miles or more. Digital, you're lucky to get 30. So the reduced range cuts the # of available viewers, and in general, with most homes wired for cable, far fewer people watch OTA TV these days; even if they can get a decent signal, they don't want to deal with antenna/cable switches and such. OTA is licensed, and one of the requirements of that license is to serve the public good. That's a good hook to require OTA broadcasters to provide time. That can 't be applied to cable, because it's not licensed.

No, it would not. Remove Citizens united, and you can actually have flat funding.

You misunderstand. Suppose we do go to public funding. Supposedly will give everyone the same opportunity for exposure. But suppose a wealthy individual decides to run, and this individual owns or controls a media outlet.
How do you stop him from using his media outlet to "cover" himself, giving him exposure disguised as news without running afoul of constitutional protections of Free Speech/Free Press? That's what the original concern was; a celebrity getting more exposure due to his celebrity status garnering more media coverage.

Truth is, you don't have a two party system, you have a system that has been effectively made a 2 party system. Your state has 4,5,10 contenders, each gets X amount determined by congress (or a lesser amount by state legislature) to spend on campaigning, no more.

Still the question remains, in order to have more than two dominant contenders, you have to have enough people that want to vote for them. We've had numerous elections where there was a 3rd party, with good name / platform recognition, but they just didn't attract a lot of voters. You can't tell people to vote for the 3rd party.

So you are surprised an initiative, brought in by democrats, lapsed under republicans then brought back by democrats, is being put forward by democrats?
Wow.

No, I'm surprised they're willing to hamstring themselves. The progressive wing of the party has some pretty big (read: expensive) pipe dreams, and PAYGO will take them off the table before they even get on the table.

[SGalisa]

People can still bypass THE WALL.

Tunnel under
Fly over
Use ladders.

Yep! Walls are just slow down barriers. Eventually, something will pass thru, over, or under.
I see critters climbing under or squeezing thru fences all the time, especially the 4-legged, furry ones in the wee hours of night.


The problem with building *any* type or size of wall is that the next person in office might or will tear it down. So, there goes all that money and effort to waste in putting it there in the first place.

RINOs is just an attempt to insult moderates by people who only see politics as an us vs them

RINOs are fence sitters and tend to move/vote with the majority, depending on which way the "ill winds" are blowing, or if they want a specific project done that might help with their own personal gain... The only insult here is the insult they have made against the people who put them into a position of power. When they go opposite of what the people were hoping for, they are only showing which side they (the RINOs) are truly on. That includes working on projects that often result with cheap construction and walls and poor security, poor quality maintenance, etc. (i.e., in apartment complexes, often labelled as "the Projects").

Literally his whole campaign rested on the fact that MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT!!!

That is *exactly* what I was saying. The MSM/media won't let it go. Neither will some of the discussion forums elsewhere on the internet.

Trump knows that if this doesn't happen it will hurt him bad for the 2020's. Dems know that too, and understandably won't give him that candy. Apart from the political side, this is a terrible idea overall but that's been said over and over already.

If Trump keeps using building the WALL as a claim or bragging about shutting the gov't shut down for weeks or months, and KEEPing it shut down (possibly) for "years", he might find himself sooner than later on the outside looking in. People won't tolerate this for too long. Especially, those waiting for their welfare, section 8, EBT, whatever (Federal) financial assistance program, SS, etc, benefits that might be affected by this "shutdown".

Hype is going on about people expecting money back during their IRS income TAX time, that they won't likely get it as soon as they would like it back.

Also, if the USA economy tanks.... well, there goes the USA as a historic entity. Say, hello to the next invader(s) taking over the land. Bunkers won't help in that situation, and supplies won't last for very long, either, most likely for those clinging on to their (soon-to-be) former abodes.

The only advantage to this project, and I had to think long and hard to find it, is that perhaps building the Wall will increase the sales of Pink Floyd albums.

....

Another Brick In the Wall.... (by Pink Floyd)

Spoiler:

...We don't need no education
We dont need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone
. . .
All in all it's just another brick in the wall.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall...

Yep, that's probably what many kids from every generation have believed to some extent. Which is why kids who believe this way, detest going to school on some or perhaps many days thruout their entire life.

[jelgate]

Wrong. The wall is inefficient because is not where the majority of illegals are sneaking in. If RINOs fit your definition then McCain wouldn't have gone against the majority of Congress with his feuds with Trump. I know It's hard to understand with our two party system but their are different degrees of right and left

[Coco Pops]

How long is "years" exactly how long will this President think he's in office the shutdown won't last years

[Gatefan1976]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-workers.html

[mad_gater]

Not "how much", but WHO qualifies?


Totally different. Left wing talk failed due to the lack of audience, so there were no advertisers willing to buy time on stations carrying it; it failed in the marketplace.

This is different. Due to social and technology changes, BROADCAST (over the air) news and media, particularly TV networks have been losing viewers. First, the change to digital broadcasting in 2009 drastically reduced the viewable range limit for TV stations. Analog, you could get 60 miles or more. Digital, you're lucky to get 30. So the reduced range cuts the # of available viewers, and in general, with most homes wired for cable, far fewer people watch OTA TV these days; even if they can get a decent signal, they don't want to deal with antenna/cable switches and such. OTA is licensed, and one of the requirements of that license is to serve the public good. That's a good hook to require OTA broadcasters to provide time. That can 't be applied to cable, because it's not licensed.


You misunderstand. Suppose we do go to public funding. Supposedly will give everyone the same opportunity for exposure. But suppose a wealthy individual decides to run, and this individual owns or controls a media outlet.
How do you stop him from using his media outlet to "cover" himself, giving him exposure disguised as news without running afoul of constitutional protections of Free Speech/Free Press? That's what the original concern was; a celebrity getting more exposure due to his celebrity status garnering more media coverage.



Still the question remains, in order to have more than two dominant contenders, you have to have enough people that want to vote for them. We've had numerous elections where there was a 3rd party, with good name / platform recognition, but they just didn't attract a lot of voters. You can't tell people to vote for the 3rd party.


No, I'm surprised they're willing to hamstring themselves. The progressive wing of the party has some pretty big (read: expensive) pipe dreams, and PAYGO will take them off the table before they even get on the table.

actually some HD antennas can be range-boosted to about 50 miles on models that can get a power boost by plugging into a wall outlet or USB port on your TV

[magi877]

on the military adventures and state dept 'good will' expenditures

GF, you ask is the US willing to lose financial/diplomatic/ "status" in the mid east?

well, i will ask another question in response:

what have we been getting out of it?

trump was right when he said a few yrs back that if any other nation had done Iraq Freedom in 2003, they would have taken the oil profits from the iraqis to pay for the war.

and as far as losing ground to the russians or iranians in the mid east? well IT IS on their borders. Russia has been dealing with terror returnees who have gained battlefield experience in Iraq/ Syria or a-stan to places like Chechnya

we claim "isis is a threat to US security!" when in fact, they are/were not. except for limited terror attacks -as bad as they are- they are in no way capable of causing the damage they could cause in Russia or Iran

so when the russians or iranians use our same national security line vis a vis ISIS/Syria, for them it is not an excuse it is a matter of actual national security

i say let them have the mid east, look how the US reacted when the Soviets were in Nicaragua and El Salvador and Cuba? OR the Iranians in Venezuela- we do not want them there and started BS wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador to eject them

and for what? Daniel Ortega is still the president of Nicaragua; el salvador is a basket case

but still, we are right to not want these interlopers in our hemisphere and for the same reasons the Iranians and Russians are right to not want us over in the ME
--------------------------------------------------

As far as our treaty allies in Europe and Aus/NZ, South Korea and Japan, etc

Well, look at how much our drawdown of ground forces from Germany about 10 yrs ago affected the german economy? the loss of local civilian jobs on US bases and the loss of spending in local towns ("outside the base gate" towns) alone had a significant,although temp, negative impact on the economy.

it also caused the GERMANS to re arm and make the on going switch from conscript only to a professional volunteer army. a feat they are having big problems with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont see any reason for us to not honor treaties with AUS/NZ. we do not have any signif personnel at either place permanently stationed. and doesn't Aus / NZ foot the majority of the bill for whatever activity is going on anyhow? that is how it should be wherever our military is.

--------------
this is getting long and so I will just end it by saying this:

the US and western allies are trying to make the world a place of uni polar leadership economically, diplomatically and military. IT IS NOT WORKING

back when we had a multi polar world (soviet union) the world was actually a more stable place. the threat of mutual destruction by nuke kept the proxy wars to a low intensity.

yes the Vietnam war and the russian A-STA war were terrible BUT look how long and destructive (loss of life, military damage, economically, socially) our involvement in the mid east (since 1990 on the low side) and for over 17 yrs now in A-stan. not to mention our actions in Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, the Phillipines...

the world is a far more violent place after are uni polar/ globalist attempts then it was before

we need to go back to the multi polar model like Russia and China are pushing for now.

the US needs to divest itself of foreign adventures

[magi877]

ANNOYED

much of what you say is more evidence that our system is broken

i dont know how to fix campaign finance reform other then to make it free

how exactly, IDK

but our current method, or rather, the way our method has been corrupted to, is not sustainable

voters continue to lose confidence in the system; the internet increasingly makes the lies of professional politicians easier to see. it cannot be sustained

the two party system is indeed not a law. the point is that these two parties have not always been in the lead and need to be knocked down. they are both over filled with professional politicians who form a 'political class' of self ascribed elites who are corrupt and beyond redemption.

the last major reform to either party was in the late 1800's and earlier 1900's with the Populist party, Bull Moose party and the Progressive party, even though they either did not win majorities or they held power for very shot times, they still caused the dems and GOP of the time to react and make changes.

This kind of change needs to happen again

perhaps those 'liberal republicans' and 'conservative dems' along with independents/libertarians could form such a force? again IDK, but what I do know is that for a person of any of these above affiliations to just "hitch a ride' with either the dems or GOP requires these ppl who do get elected to make massive changes to their beliefs and actions once they get elected. the price to play

------------
and no, it is no surprise that Pelosi and her gang made those house rule changes; they did it to preserve their power and to silence the progressives who won seats

both the Gephardt rule and the move by Pelosi to make it harder for any house member or caucus to make challenges to her leadership are nothing but clear and desperate/despotic attempts at shutting up and shutting down any hope for a real change that these progressives were elected on

one new rep was basically censured by the house dems for her saying that trump was a 'mother f##ker' at a PRIVATE PARTY!

So no matter what side one is on-whether you believed the GOP would kill obama care or that the new dem progressives will deliver education and health care for all, it is all "cheese" to fill the political cupboards. Americans dont pay attn to what is going on until it has GONE ON. then it is too late.

[Annoyed]

That could be fun. But as I understand it the Daily Mail is only a little bit behind the National Enquirer in the credibility dept.

[Gatefan1976]

That could be fun. But as I understand it the Daily Mail is only a little bit behind the National Enquirer in the credibility dept.

pick any source you want:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=t...w=1280&bih=571

[SGalisa]

Trump was needed to 'break the system'
. . .

Which is true, but if he continues to insist on building that WALL on the Mexican/USA border by shutting down the gov't and keeping it shut down, etc., he may find himself losing his support, and not from just the ones who *want* THE wall built... but for the gov't shut-down & services cut-off.

Also, if he declares a complete shut-down of the entire Mexican-USA border
* how is he going to accomplish that without a wall, when he keeps harping the WALL is to block "illegal" trespassing into USA lands..? If he ends up using drones, other planes, and other satellite forms to control overseeing who AND what is below on the ground, why not just keep those into active service, as has been mentioned before on this political topic..? That would only make sense.

Plus,
* if normal, commercial trade (route) supplies via (approved) Trucks and vendors are stopped going north and south along the Mexican/USA border at already official stop-check points, that won't bode well with some of the receiving end on both sides. This will be a factor in the 2020 election, let alone the next 2 years leading up to that time frame.

the recent democratic win of the HOR and the inclusion of radical progressives in this win was seen by the voters as being 'meaningful change'

well it is not

the house dems have re-instated the Gephardt rule

this rule is the "pay/go" rule

meaning that any new legislation that these young radicals (Ocasio-Cortez) may be planning is DEAD BEFORE ARRIVAL
. . .

the article:
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/02/68154...-s-house-rules

Some of us can only hope Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" would be DOA, because it is NOT economically feasible. She is living in dreamy-land. Her idea may sound wonderful, but her timing and goals in what she *EXPECTS* to be accomplished are just not realistic.

She really needs to set up an experimental "GREEN deal" in her own area or somewhere where lots and lots of people exist who are NOT so willing to go off of their current form of life, but willing to give her "GREEN deal" a try, and without being penalized or punished in any way, shape or form if they fail to achieve what *she* expects from their own pockets supporting such a living system, then she needs to calculate the cost of what it cost all of them for the various ways they were able to achieve her *Dream Green deal* and how much of those materials is needed which can support the rest of the populations on a more massive scale, then she can work out the kinks and adjust her timing, etc.

But to start a project and expect it to be completed within 12 years of the initial start date deadline, is just pure fool-folly thinking. One of her ideas included everyone driving on electric cars...which probably use batteries to store and utilize the energy, especially on rainy and cloudy days that the sun literally doesn't shine for solar absorption. Well, I came across a recent article that was describing the world's copper supplies... copper is needed in most batteries to make them work. So, if our copper supply is dwindling, that does NOT bode well for the millions and billions of people relying on using batteries for the rest of their entire life...!

Ocasio-Cortez needs a hands on learning education in many engineering systems and geological/mineral supplies (earth science) to understand and comprehend how effective her current "GREEN deal" ideas will actually work. Reading various books, and hearing what other people claim might work, doesn't help in comprehending actual experiences in seeing how these "things", that she wants created to achieve her dream, will actually work, and work 100% of the time ----with back-up systems planned in case Plan A fails, and Plans B & C also don't work.

Also, if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez expects certain companies to mine minerals to achieve her *amazing* goals, she needs to also realize that Strip mining minerals is a big sore spot in many areas, and lots of minerals have already been stripped quite bare, requiring new places to be mined to keep up with the production and demand for products that these minerals, etc., are used in producing. This process doesn't just affect the humans working in the mines, but also affects the ecosystems of nature within and surrounding the stripping results.

[Annoyed]

Which is true, but if he continues to insist on building that WALL on the Mexican/USA border by shutting down the gov't and keeping it shut down, etc., he may find himself losing his support, and not from just the ones who *want* THE wall built... but for the gov't shut-down & services cut-off.

Also, if he declares a complete shut-down of the entire Mexican-USA border
* how is he going to accomplish that without a wall, when he keeps harping the WALL is to block "illegal" trespassing into USA lands..? If he ends up using drones, other planes, and other satellite forms to control overseeing who AND what is below on the ground, why not just keep those into active service, as has been mentioned before on this political topic..? That would only make sense.

Plus,
* if normal, commercial trade (route) supplies via (approved) Trucks and vendors are stopped going north and south along the Mexican/USA border at already official stop-check points, that won't bode well with some of the receiving end on both sides. This will be a factor in the 2020 election, let alone the next 2 years leading up to that time frame.

Gotta disagree with you here. We need that wall, and I hope Trump sticks to his guns on this.

I've made this argument with others here. Certainly, we have the technical ability to control the border. But we do not have the political will to do so. How long have we been "discussing" this problem? Since the 1980's at least, when Reagan did amnesty for those here at the time, in return for securing the border. We got the amnesty, but they never did lock the border down, did they? Politicians of BOTH stripes have been preaching about the need to secure the border for decades. But we haven't done it.

The reason is that while they want to sound like they want to secure the border, they don't actually do anything that will be effective. Because in reality, they don't want to lock it down.

Democrats dream of millions of illegals that will be eventually offered "a path to citizenship" which is BS for amnesty again, and once they are citizens, they would be expected to be good democratic voters.

Many Republicans kiss business behind, and therefore want a continuing supply of low wage workers to cut the floor out of the US job market so that wages stay low. We can't have the pressures of the market force business to pay a living wage, can we?

In addition, there are an awful lot of govt. employees who make their livings administering the welfare systems that support a significant percentage of illegals. They certainly don't want the flow stopped.

For political reasons, until now, pols of both parties have talked a good game, but they don't actually DO anything that will secure the border. That's why the opposition to the wall is so strong. It will just stand there, blocking access, regardless of what the pols do. It will be effective, which is why they don't want it.

You're right about Ocasio-Cortez, though. She is just a child who managed to get out of her playpen. Has no freakin' idea how things work, but like that petulant child, wants what she wants and thinks she can wish it into reality.