Author Topic: The Politics Thread v3  (Read 14197 times)

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 14334
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 04:24:51 PM by bhu »

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7324
  • (un-) Amazingly Unproductive
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2016, 05:03:37 PM »
Somebody really important must have
dropped a behind the scenes bomb,
because all the sudden things are changing.

The Koch link and the cooperating = the real game is ON.

**

Hillary + Military ... I think she has triangulated
(via The master) the "Woman Must Be sKrong"
combined with NYCity liberals are a tad hawkish.
Total non-starter for her '02 Senate campaign.

Joe Lieberman was a solid Democrat, excepting
his ultra-hawkish Israel + military opinions.
Hillary isn't out into that category.


btw I don't think a Mondale or Dole landslide *
is usually possible these days, with massive
focus group-ing available to both Dems + Repubs.
This comes straight out of what Clinton 40 did/does.

* Trump hasn't had access to insider Repub data
and still may not get access to it.  That doesn't mean
he had no data ; his TV stuff was better for a while.


Big night tomorrow.
avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7324
  • (un-) Amazingly Unproductive
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2016, 05:18:01 PM »
... ooooooh boy.

Saw a short tv interview with a PA Unbound
Delegate Candidate, who said he had spent
$30,000 of his own money to get the slot.
I haven't found a link for it yet and don't recall
if it was said whether he was Dem or Repub.

'Course I pay for gas to go vote, and my sanity.

avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2016, 05:56:28 PM »
So I've been doing my research on the races I'll be voting on this November (and next week)?  They all suck.  A lot.  I have almost no choice.  My Senate race right now?  It's between three people.  Two (R) and one (D).  The (D) has approx. -1985672383957201856% chance to win.  Because he's just awful as a candidate.  Like, can't campaign worth crap.  Looks like a law student trying to run.  He's a former Rep!  But his campaign looks awful.  Also IN is awful red.  But the other two?  They're trying to be Trump and Cruz.  The Trump is literally insane.  The Cruz is insane and corrupt, but less insane than the Trump.  I have no real choice at state rep, but my one option is at least decent (she's not bad actually), it's just that it won't DO anything.  And then for the other things, well, who looks at AG and judge elections?  Me.  Why?  I have no idea why we elect judges.  It's the stupidest thing.  AG shouldn't really be either.  But yeah, not enamored with what I have to choose from.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Online Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9358
  • Less Angry Than Before
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2016, 11:15:04 PM »
I only found out last week that you have elected judges.

I am completely lost on why anyone decided to politicise what was intended to be the branch of government that is independent of (direct, at least) politics.
Still short tempered.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2016, 11:38:32 PM »
There is a prominent argument for electing judges, though I don't know it well off the top of my head.  It's sort of the same reason one has juries -- to make the justice system less oligarchic.  And, if you think democracy is important, as a general rule, you want the development of legal rules to be tethered to it somehow.  The "countermajoritarian difficulty" of having unelected judges trump the policy decisions of elected officials (aka judicial review) is a major issue in US law, politics, and philosophy. 

Also, I'm not entirely sure that it makes all that much of a difference.  Is it all that different to have a judge appointed by elected officials than to elect the judge herself?  All you're doing is introducing a lag (and, perhaps some norms, but those don't stand up too well).  If the lag is long enough and things are protean enough, maybe there's a difference, but it's not obvious that those conditions obtain or that it's a big effect.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2016, 12:04:41 AM »
Yes.  One of the biggest reasons it's problematic is that in election years, sentences are harsher.  Judges run on being tough on crime, not fair and impartial.  Hiring based on merit won't have that.  Well, as much.  We need to reform the system, and not have elections for judges.  Judges should be hired as impartial arbiters of the law, not elected to act in accordance with the electorate.  The legislature is what changes the law as to the accordance with the electorate, the executive makes sure things run smoothly and prioritizes funds, the judicial makes sure things run according to the law and rules.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2016, 09:00:43 AM »
One of the biggest reasons it's problematic is that in election years, sentences are harsher.  Judges run on being tough on crime, not fair and impartial. 
Yeah, one of my colleagues did a great study on that.  Running for reelection is probably the biggest problem, now that I have a cup of coffee and am thinking of that. 

But, what's "merit"?  Is it what law school they went to?  How do you distinguish between the thousands of graduates from top 5 schools?  Not that I'd want to use that as an indicator anyway. 

The above post neglects all of the important policymaking that all 3 branches do.  Even the core purpose of "mak[ing] sure things run according to the law and rules" is startlingly complex and laden with value judgments.  I wrote an exam yesterday for Conflict of Laws, which is a civil procedure course and very abstract (and almost entirely judge-made law) and there's a number of value judgments even in that. 

All the branches are exercising power, and that's probably inevitable, at least given the way we characterize them.  I'm not sure if there's a better way or a way that sidesteps that -- it'd be such a radical change that I haven't given it much thought.  You could do away with judicial review -- although that's pretty arguably just making sure people follow the rules (in this instance, the Constitution, etc.) -- but that wouldn't get rid of the interstitial legal rulemaking that judges do. 

Offline Nanshork

  • Homebrew Reviewer
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11194
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2016, 10:22:15 AM »
I'm finally going to post in a politics thread, god help me.  At least this one and the last one seemed pretty argument free.


We started electing judges because (IIRC) when it was changed so that judges would be elected there was a lot of corruption and people nominating their friends to be judges and whatnot.  Yes, it's a shitty idea.  Judges should be impartial, not running around making crazy commercials.  Most aren't (and shouldn't be) politicians so they don't know how to campaign anyway.

There's issues either way, but I've seen some push to go back to appointees.  I don't know if that'll go anywhere though.

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2016, 10:44:17 AM »
I mean, we already do appointees.  The SCOTUS is appointed.  As are a number of other, lower ones.  But we can't have elected judge offices while we treat them political at all.  And as humans we can't not treat them politically.  It's so deeply ingrained in our consciousness I don't think we can separate that.  I don't really have a solution here and I'm probably not doing a good job of indicating that.  I'm just saying things suck.

As for the judicial review things?  Yeah, I understand completely.  I was over simplistic with my description, but the judgment issue is not really policy making, it's more....interpretation.  And that does change with time, you're right.  But I wouldn't call it policy making, it's just differing interpretations of the same law.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Nanshork

  • Homebrew Reviewer
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11194
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #30 on: April 26, 2016, 10:56:28 AM »
I am aware that we have appointees, I meant that there's some push to do away with electing judges altogether.   :P

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #31 on: April 26, 2016, 11:20:10 AM »
I know, just noting that we already have it so it wouldn't be a HUGE leap.  Although, I have to admit there's a lot of people I wouldn't trust appointing judges.  However, those people are elected by people I wouldn't trust to elect judges.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3489
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #32 on: April 26, 2016, 02:52:59 PM »
The problem with electing judges is that you end up getting demagogues and yahoos with little to no legal experience running and getting a lot of votes because of it.

Take North Carolina, for instance. We let our State Supreme Court justices run for office like Senators and Governors. We ended up getting a lot of fundamentalist Christians running who believed that the First Amendment applied to only Christians and Jews because they define "freedom of religion" as being the sole province of the Abrahamic God. Muslims, Druze, and other Abrahamic monotheists don't count because reasons.

Online Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9358
  • Less Angry Than Before
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #33 on: April 26, 2016, 04:32:51 PM »
The problem with electing judges is that you end up getting demagogues and yahoos with little to no legal experience running and getting a lot of votes because of it.

Take North Carolina, for instance. We let our State Supreme Court justices run for office like Senators and Governors. We ended up getting a lot of fundamentalist Christians running who believed that the First Amendment applied to only Christians and Jews because they define "freedom of religion" as being the sole province of the Abrahamic God. Muslims, Druze, and other Abrahamic monotheists don't count because reasons.

Talk about an education failure (on their part).
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 04:36:28 PM by Raineh Daze »
Still short tempered.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7324
  • (un-) Amazingly Unproductive
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #34 on: April 26, 2016, 06:42:43 PM »
I voted today.

My ballot included a state race I didn't know existed,
and the local women's club sponsored Voters guide
had no mention of it either.  I've googled around for
info ... and have not found anything.  Weird.
I didn't vote on that one.

I guinea pig'd myself for the handicapped voting machine.
The election supervisor didn't know how to operate it, and
figured I would try it out for him.  It worked, I hope it works.

Turnout was at the '08 Hill v Obama primary levels.
There wasn't any drama on the Repub side that year,
so I'm'n'a count this year as a slightly lower turnout.
I don't think that's good news for Bernie fans.
avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #35 on: April 26, 2016, 11:59:18 PM »
The DNC is playing with fire.  They now need Sanders to get the nomination.  Need.  Otherwise, this will be the first Presidential election in a long time in which the RNC gains in the Senate/House.  Normally the off elections are where they gain seats, but this time Hillary is so unpopular that she's going to cause a lot of conservative down ballot elections.  She's already primed to be the most unpopular candidate to win a presidency.  And I'm not 100% convinced she'll beat Trump.  And it's all the fault of the DNC.  This is something that's been building for a long time and it's finally coming to a head.  It's not really a fault of any specific incident, but a perfect storm of corruption, lack of real change, broken promises, and the national parties.  Hillary's probably the most unlucky candidate, in addition to her lack of appeal.  In 2008 she had the first black resident she's going against.  Now she's against an actual progressive?  With bipartisan support and a LOT of independent support?  In an election where she'd likely have to go against the worst candidate in history?  She had to lie and cheat her way to this nomination to get the easiest November ticket to win ever.  And it's going to cost her the presidency.

This whole thing has exposed the problems with the primary system, in a BIG way.  This is just the first time that it's been visible....well, since the 70s....when they changed the rules to make it harder for grass roots (re: popular but not establishment) candidates to win.  They thought they fixed the issue with that.  But they only hid it.  And it's taken the most popular candidate in a LONG time to expose this issue.  Hillary will probably win in November.  Probably.  She could very well lose yes to even Trump.  Sanders wouldn't lose to any R nominee.  Sanders would mean a wealth of blue pickups in the House and Senate.  Clinton means no change or lost ground.  And earlier, when I linked Radio Head's song Just as the RNC's song for this election?  I was wrong.  That's the song for this entire cycle.

You do it to yourself.
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2016, 12:18:51 PM »
^ I'll be honest, almost nothing in this post makes sense to me.  Are you just venting?  I mean, don't get me wrong -- voters suck.  Elections in general do. 

(click to show/hide)
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 12:26:43 PM by Unbeliever »

Offline dman11235

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2571
  • Disclaimer: not at full capacity yet
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2016, 05:11:58 PM »
Mostly venting, but yes a prediction involved.  However, let me address a couple of your points.  On the Hillary being unpopular: that is not up for debate.  She is.  Her net favorability rating is something like -25.  Trumps is the only one worse at around -40.  The only one with a positive is Sanders at something like +10.  And people have been voting for the "socialist".  Independents and progressive Democrats have been.  In contests where anyone can vote, Bernie has been winning by a lot.  In contests where only (D)s can vote, he's been losing...by not a lot.  Almost all of Clinton's lead has been through early voting.  Sanders almost beat her election day in NC, and DID beat her on election day in AZ, MO, and IL.  So even though she "has more votes"* it's much more complicated than that.  So...in the elections where a larger portion of the demographics of the country can vote, he's been winning, and in the ones where there's a biased portion of the electorate voting he's been losing.

And the country is right leaning....kind of.  Until you look at actual preferences of policies.  Most progressive policies are well received by a majority of Americans, and most conservative ones aren't.  We have one of the worst turnouts in the developed world.  And Sanders has been getting first time voters out where he can (re: open state primaries).  In states where turnout is large, he wins.  I repeat for effect:  in states where turnout is large, he wins.  This is decidedly not just young people.  It's also people who haven't voted because they've had no candidate.  So yes.  There is a rather significant portion of progressives out there that is untapped.

As for the labels?  Obama is left of center.  Hillary is at best dead center.  And that's for American spectrum of politics.  She's way too hawkish to be considered a liberal.  She's espoused support for a LOT of conservative view points over the years, so I am very skeptical of this new, more progressive Hillary**.  Going simply by her campaign statements, over the past two months at least (but not the months before that!  She's changed positions on a large number of topics as Sanders has been catching up!), she's fairly progressive, almost halfway to where Sanders is.  I don't trust for an instant though that she's going to keep these views in the General, much less her presidency.  And my point in the previous post was that this is a humongous problem.  In an election defined by lack of trust in the establishment, pivoting to the center might well be a death knell.  Also my point, is that do not make the mistake of assuming this anti-establishment uprising is confined to the clown car that was the RNC primaries, it exists in the left as well.

As many have noted, Obama has not been a true progressive.  He's been fairly progressive, but he did walk back some of his more progressive agenda topics.  Some for legitimate reasons (like the conservative and hostile House and Senate he's had to deal with) and some not so legitimate reasons (simply not doing it).

*She doesn't have more votes.  It's impossible to tell.  Even though she's beating him in voting primary votes, she's lost nearly every caucus (or every one? I forget which ones were caucuses).  And caucus votes are not tallied directly.  So we don't know how many people voted one way or another in the various caucus states, directly.  We do know that they've tended to have record turnout, and Sanders has won those.

**Do I think Hillary will be a bad president?  No.  I do not.  I think she is dangerous to elect, not because of what she will do to the country, but what lesson it will teach the DNC and the electorate about the process, and progressive ideals.  I believe we are in a dangerous time, and at a turning point.  We are not about to fall backwards, no, but we are in danger of doing some things that we as a country will regret later down the line.  I do not think Hillary will be the cause of these things.  I simply think her election might precipitate some of these things later on.  This election's problem isn't the next four years.  It's the fours years after that.  And I believe that nominating Sanders would prevent the problems of those four years.

In summary, I really really really hope Hillary is now a progressive.  Because if she's not, the DNC just lost a lot of elections.  And that is bad for our country because the people that will be winning those elections are the Todd Youngs of the world.  Who's Todd Young those of you outside of Indiana?  He's Cruz, but worse.  He's probably going to be the next Senator from Indiana.  Sanders was the best thing to happen to the DNC in a long time, and they had better not waste it.

EDIT: On Clinton pivoting to the "center"?  Well, there's already evidence that she's going to do it.  Another reason I don't trust her not to do it.  Up until the Michigan primary, the Flint crisis was her number 1 top priority.  Then....nothing.  Nothing more about it.  Sanders keeps bringing up drinking water issues, but she hasn't.  She also spoke at AIPAC.  Also known as the conservative war hawk's wet dream convention.  And got a standing ovation.  After spouting peace talk. Then she's abandoned it.  I don't know her stance on a number of things because it's changed so much so recently.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 05:20:10 PM by dman11235 »
My Sig's Handy Haversack  Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Avatar d20

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7324
  • (un-) Amazingly Unproductive
    • View Profile
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #38 on: April 27, 2016, 05:42:07 PM »
My entire region of the state voted
for Hillary and ?random in '08 ...
but this year went Trump and Bernie.

I mean they still had Hillary and ?Random
to choose from, but went completely different.
 :pie
avatar#3 , gravitational lensing edition ... I'm way on the other side of the universe but look like pretty rings

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3489
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: The Politics Thread v3
« Reply #39 on: April 27, 2016, 09:49:55 PM »
The problem with electing judges is that you end up getting demagogues and yahoos with little to no legal experience running and getting a lot of votes because of it.

Take North Carolina, for instance. We let our State Supreme Court justices run for office like Senators and Governors. We ended up getting a lot of fundamentalist Christians running who believed that the First Amendment applied to only Christians and Jews because they define "freedom of religion" as being the sole province of the Abrahamic God. Muslims, Druze, and other Abrahamic monotheists don't count because reasons.

Talk about an education failure (on their part).

It's also propaganda, too. Lots of folks regard Muslims as the enemy post-9/11, and it's generally not imagined that the people you want to kill are worshiping the same god as you. Heck, we did this for Jews back in medieval times with rationalizations like "they were once favored by God, but then they sold out Jesus and became godless" and stuff like that.

Granted, there's a lot of fundies who are unwilling and unknowing to confront their religious similarities, but there's a lot of conservative Christians among the military and intelligence communities, too.