|
Lightning Knight posted:Was she born in the United States? Does it matter if her parents were citizens if she was born here? She was born in Peru but otherwise you'd be correct. Also I think it is correct to widen our scope to include state level politicians who are smart and effective leaders.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:She was born in Peru but otherwise you'd be correct. That’s super depressing. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Yeah every article about her says she "immigrated" to the United States 20 years ago. That wouldn't be the correct word to use if she were born a citizen of the US. I haven't seen any article address it directly, but it seems likely she naturalized at some point rather than being born a citizen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean exactly, imagine a scenario where Bernie has chosen a number of establishment Democrats to be in his cabinet as a show of good will to the party and they proceed to invoke the 25th. Even if it was 100% justified, it would be the last time millions of people ever voted Democrat. If a president had a stroke, was incapacitated and the cabinet invoked the 25th amendment no one would bad an eye. If the President invoked the 25th to take powers back after he or she recovers then no one would bat an eye. Section 3 has been invoked 3 times already and its part of "The System is Working as our Founders Intended." mythology that has been built up over 200 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
karthun posted:If a president had a stroke, was incapacitated and the cabinet invoked the 25th amendment no one would bad an eye. If the President invoked the 25th to take powers back after he or she recovers then no one would bat an eye. Section 3 has been invoked 3 times already and its part of "The System is Working as our Founders Intended." mythology that has been built up over 200 years. Which is not the scenario as discussed. The scenario was taking away the presidency from an elderly president who is senile but still present enough to make public appearances. For example, they should absolutely invoke the 25th against Trump, because he’s clearly brain mush. But they don’t because they know the Republican Party would be boned if they did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Which is not the scenario as discussed. The scenario was taking away the presidency from an elderly president who is senile but still present enough to make public appearances. For example, they should absolutely invoke the 25th against Trump, because he’s clearly brain mush. But they don’t because they know the Republican Party would be boned if they did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Which is not the scenario as discussed. The scenario was taking away the presidency from an elderly president who is senile but still present enough to make public appearances. For example, they should absolutely invoke the 25th against Trump, because he’s clearly brain mush. But they don’t because they know the Republican Party would be boned if they did. 100% justified to me means a stroke or a heart attack or an assignation attempt, not senile but still able to perform the basic requirements of the office. Imagine if the President has a stroke at noon and is in the ICU in a medically induced coma. Congress FINALLY passes a budget bill that the President supports and it needs to be signed at midnight or the Government shuts down. This is a situation where the 25th should be invoked because the President is in no condition to perform the basic duties of the office. No one is going to desert a political party for enacting the Presidents desires when the president is unable to perform them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
karthun posted:100% justified to me means a stroke or a heart attack or an assignation attempt, not senile but still able to perform the basic requirements of the office. Imagine if the President has a stroke at noon and is in the ICU in a medically induced coma. Congress FINALLY passes a budget bill that the President supports and it needs to be signed at midnight or the Government shuts down. This is a situation where the 25th should be invoked because the President is in no condition to perform the basic duties of the office. No one is going to desert a political party for enacting the Presidents desires when the president is unable to perform them. Sure but that then isn't really as bigger concern for Sanders than it was for W or Obama. There's no real reason to focus on 25th'ing Sanders before he's even showing any signs of issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sure but that then isn't really as bigger concern for Sanders than it was for W or Obama. There's no real reason to focus on 25th'ing Sanders before he's even showing any signs of issues. W himself invoked the 25th twice, technically four times if you count the two times he put himself back in office. No one is even thinking of invoking the 25th against a theoretical President Sanders besides President Sanders himself or his cabinet in the case that a President Sanders would be incapacitated and unable to perform the duties of his office. This is feverdream twitter stupidity like the dipshits who thought that Crowley was going to seriously challenge AOC on the WFP ticket. Why bother with a shitshow and probably lose when you can work to district yourself and AOC into separate districts in 2022. This statement is the statement I take issue with. quote:This goes for anyone who is president, invoking the 25th is suicidal for the party doing it. The 25th has been invoked 3 times already. It was not suicidal for the party doing it. If it would have been invoked in 1981 then it also would not have been suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
karthun posted:W himself invoked the 25th twice, technically four times if you count the two times he put himself back in office. No one is even thinking of invoking the 25th against a theoretical President Sanders besides President Sanders himself or his cabinet in the case that a President Sanders would be incapacitated and unable to perform the duties of his office. This is feverdream twitter stupidity like the dipshits who thought that Crowley was going to seriously challenge AOC on the WFP ticket. Why bother with a shitshow and probably lose when you can work to district yourself and AOC into separate districts in 2022. Posters definitely weren't referring to using Section 4 of the 25th specifically and definitely it almost happening in '81 when Reagan was shot is very comparable to it happening due to deteriorating mental capacity. So this was very relevant and insightful
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Posters definitely weren't referring to using Section 4 of the 25th specifically and definitely it almost happening in '81 when Reagan was shot is very comparable to it happening due to deteriorating mental capacity. So this was very relevant and insightful Deteriorating mental capacity is not the issue that concerns me, its incapacitation from a stroke or heart attack. A president suffering from deteriorating mental capacity can still sign bills and let the bureaucracy run the government. A president who is in a medical coma after a stroke can not and a pocket veto if Congress is not in session could lead to funding being cut off and the bureaucracy being unable to run the government. If we are setting an expectation that the 25th is not to be used for any situation besides wanting to launch nuclear weapons then we will have problems trying to deal with the real world of when the 25th will actually be used.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
She makes a good point https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/1062079702129631232
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Why do we run our campaigns so drat early? Every other country doesn't start theirs till six months before the election, but we start two years prior to it? I thought everyone would have learned after the grueling election process last time that we'd never go through this kind of thing again, because when you spend that long debating through these extended primaries then people stop listening to the actual issues and just latch on to a side and vote based on political alignment. Frustrating man. Also I read that 'ol Hilldawg wants to run a third time? Please tell me this is just a rumor; if she runs again and snags the nomination we're proper hosed
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Also I read that 'ol Hilldawg wants to run a third time? Please tell me this is just a rumor; if she runs again and snags the nomination we're proper hosed She's not running. But there are people who want her to run because it serves their personal financial interests and talking/writing articles about it also serves said financial interests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Why do we run our campaigns so drat early? Every other country doesn't start theirs till six months before the election, but we start two years prior to it? Because America is the totally legitimate heir to the Republic of Rome and we like the idea of perpetual consul elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Lots of countries have legally enforced campaign seasons, as in it's illegal to campaign outside of them. Apparantly the UK and Canada do this customarily but not by law. France and Germany are 2 weeks, Japan is 12 days, Singapore is 1 week, and this seems to help entrenched parties and harm opposition, as seen in Singapore, Japan, probably Germany too
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Why do we run our campaigns so drat early? Every other country doesn't start theirs till six months before the election, but we start two years prior to it? because its the greatest show on earth
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
So, this may be helpful or interesting to someone, but I spent a few hours doing wikipedia research on the 2020 candidates triggered by a friend's chance remark. I wanted to quantify a few things and put candidates next to each other and see everything at once. So, I took 35 names for possible nominees from a whole bunch of sources (and still missed a few; alas, poor Buttigieg) and set about putting some data to their name. First I have highest elected office, age, and state, all self explanatory, but the things I REALLY wanted to look at was electability and ideology. For electability, I tried to compare them to a generic democrat. For 2018, 2016, and one prior election, I took the national vote (for president in those years, for the aggregate of all house races in off years) and the Cook PVI of the district or state (I couldn't figure out a good way to do this for just mayors), and used those two numbers to estimate what a 'generic democrat' would do in that year in that district. And then I compared what each candidate actually did. If they beat it, and most candidates in most years did, that's a positive number, if they didn't, that's a negative. There are some glaring issues with this; I might go back and at least for the presidential election years, directly compare to the presidential vote in that specific district/state, instead of using Cook PVI. But this was a relatively fast and simple way to get estimates. It also way, way overenthuses over people in deep blue states/districts, because Cook's PVI doesn't actually go up high enough for most places. For ideology... well, I kinda had to use DW-NOMINATE, didn't I? I mean, I don't know how to quantify it for governors or mayors. If people have ideas, I'd love to hear the drat things. But DW-NOMINATE is what I have, and it at least takes care of the congresscritters. That gave me a bunch of people with some election results and some ideological information, and I found the results pretty interesting: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PMoNe9JklqO-sSQhg3dmJEOZfQ-vuuo0fXNb5mTV2bw/edit?usp=sharing (I flagged in YELLOW where there wasn't at least a district-level result for them or if they had an election where they couldn't even beat a hypothetical generic democrat; O'Rourke baffled me that they looked poorly that way, but PVI had Texas as R+8, and the Democrats won the national vote by about 7, so by that measure a 'generic dem' should have only lost by 1 point and not 2- yeah, I can poke holes in that argument too. This is a very blunt instrument. I also flagged in yellow candidates whose DW-NOMINATE scores put them in the right half of the party, about -0.35, because I want edit: at least a more-left-than-the-current-center-of-the-party candidate, dammit.) Senators who come out on the right side of both of those crude filters: Booker, Brown, Gillibrand, Harris, Merkley, Sanders Congressmen who come out on the right side: Kennedy, Ryan, Swalwell  Not intended as a be-all-end-all sorting method, but I figured people might like to see the data, for as much as the methodology could be nit-picked. Another column for "Did they endorse Medicare For All" would be a handy filter, for instance. And I sure as heck wouldn't just blindly vote for Joe Kennedy III because of this. Mukaikubo fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
To be honest, I feel like this is the sort of thing that is inherently impossible to quantify, to the extent that little (if anything) is gained by even attempting to do so. Electability in state/local elections obviously can't be compared with presidential (again, to the extent where I'm not sure doing so even gives you any useful information, other than "did this person do so incredibly bad that their terrible performance would likely translate nation-wide"). On the topic of ideology specifically, the issue with DW-NOMINATE is mainly that it's not weighting different votes (since doing so is basically impossible due to different ideological viewpoints valuing different things differently) and is mainly just measuring to what extent someone votes in a strongly polarized/partisan manner (not that there's anything better - it's just not really possible to quantify this). It can give you a good idea of whether a Democrat is some total centrist shithead, but it's not that useful for distinguishing anyone who isn't exceptionally conservative. A far better indicator is to just choose a small number of key issues that tell you a lot about a politician's ideology - MfA is probably the best thing to use currently for this. And even then there's an element where you have to look at stuff like how consistent a politician has been, the sort of language they've used, whether they've walked back their support, etc (for example various Democrats have, at some point recently, voiced support for MfA, but most are far less reliable in this position than someone like Sanders).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
This may seem naive, but doesn't it take time for less popular candidates to become recognizable? Wasn't one of the criticisms of Bernie's campaign was that he started too late so that the general American public wasn't familiar with him until the race was basically over?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:25
|
|
|
Have any of you guys read about Andrew Yang? https://www.yang2020.com/meet-andrew/ He's running for the Democratic nomination mainly to popularize the idea of universal basic income. An extract from his website: quote:It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding UBI by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 10%. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction. He seems like a nice guy, although his business background is probably not going to get a lot of fans here. A definite no-hoper, but maybe this is the small first step that eventually leads to a real ideological change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
There's going to be a few candidates that just help drag the conversation to the left. That seems worthwhile to me, provided us lefties don't pick up our toys and go home when our favorites bow out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:That and that Trump would just immediately notify Congress that he's fine and he would immediately get back the presidency.  Nope! After the President goes "actually I'm fine" the Vice President remains acting president for four days if he wants to, and stays acting president after that if in that time he tells Congress "no actually the President is incapable, don't listen to him".There's also nothing keeping the VP from re-transmitting the notification if removal fails in Congress, other than if the President manages to fire enough of the Cabinet in the intervening time, which might be measurable in milliseconds. what i'm saying is, a hostile takeover by way of the 25th would be a hilarious shitshow but on the other hand, I don't think the Hypothetical Senile Bernie scenario would be a problem for anyone except very stupid people, who are admittedly numerous Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:This may seem naive, but doesn't it take time for less popular candidates to become recognizable? Wasn't one of the criticisms of Bernie's campaign was that he started too late so that the general American public wasn't familiar with him until the race was basically over? Sure, but a year and change might well be enough so I'm not betting against even pretty much unknown people right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Have any of you guys read about Andrew Yang? Not sure his plan is workable as proposed, but it's nice to see UBI getting more lip service. Unfortunately, we're still probably twenty years from anyone seriously pushing UBI on a national scale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
edit: If you've got 2/3 of Congress agreeing the President is incompetent, then you just impeach, if you've got a President claiming they are competent, and >1/3 of Congress agrees, the President wins. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Not sure his plan is workable as proposed, but it's nice to see UBI getting more lip service. Unfortunately, we're still probably twenty years from anyone seriously pushing UBI on a national scale. UBI will be here for our childrens childrens and we must secure the foundation now so thank god ubi has any public discorse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
"You can't collect income tax from robots or software" lol gently caress that guy, he's either a liar or a dumbass. Those profits go somewhere, tax the quadrillionaire who owns all the robots and software.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
Nationalize the robots. And anyways, I'm not a fan of UBI schemes that feature them replacing currently existing social programs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 06:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"You can't collect income tax from robots or software" I mean its technically true, you have to collect capital gains tax from robots and software.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:She's not running. But there are people who want her to run because it serves their personal financial interests and talking/writing articles about it also serves said financial interests. The fact that Mark Penn predicted it is irrefutable proof it ain’t gonna happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:There's going to be a few candidates that just help drag the conversation to the left. That seems worthwhile to me, provided us lefties don't pick up our toys and go home when our favorites bow out. The conversation won't be dragged to the left if "us lefties" agree to vote unconditionally for whoever wins the nomination, regardless of platform & policy--especially pre-emptively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
Seriously, in what possible reality are you living where you agree to vote for whatever right-wing piece of garbage the Democrats feel like running and that somehow will convince them to move left?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 08:52
|
|
|
Honestly, that UBI proposal is terrible, instituting a VAT and ending social programs for a check is if anything most likely worse than the current status quo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 09:55
|
|
|
Yeah it's basically the conservative wet dream ever since the New Deal, dismantle systems that reduce inequality, in exchange for placating the people by sanding off the sharpest edges of capitalism, it's everything Hayek and Friedman wanted. Except in real life conservatives are too short-sighted to even do the sanding-off part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:He seems like a nice guy, although his business background is probably not going to get a lot of fans here. A definite no-hoper, but maybe this is the small first step that eventually leads to a real ideological change. I'm highly skeptical of people who want a UBI to replace existing welfare programs. It's very easy to imagine such a program ending up like a somewhat worse version of the status quo. edit: Also, any discussion of raising tax revenue should include the idea of a wealth tax, since even very progressive income taxation isn't going to do much to address existing inequality (beyond shrinking the rate at which it grows). Wealth inequality is both larger and more meaningful than income inequality, after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
Finally a credible source that confirms a Clinton 2020 campaign: https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1062434155621990402
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
He's running https://twitter.com/politico/status/1062436104241070081
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
I personally think that Beto is the most likely choice especially if it's a Texan. I honestly think that it just depends whether he wants it or not. I know that there are a lot of people who are skeptical but he really has that je ne sais quoi that none of the other names I've seen floating about have. That X factor that Molly Ivins described as "a bit of Elvis", JFK had it, Bill Clinton had it, Obama had it and Beto has it. Though he better decide soon as he's going to have to really hustle to visit every county in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
He's got that X factor, just like <list of horrible presidents>
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:05
|
|