What GOVT changes do you welcome?

Started by Cassia, December 16, 2020, 04:58:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hydra009

#30
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 17, 2020, 01:33:20 AMYeah, meant college, fixed it.
We don't. And I don't. Seems to serve no purpose but to make things less democratic.
But as a voter, don't you distrust voters?  They make some bad calls every now and then, you know.

Plus, it makes everything so simple when you combine people voting and land voting.  You hardly ever have to stay up till 5am only to find out that the guy with less votes won because he got votes from people living in special places where people's votes disproportionately have more of an impact on the election.  I hardly ever get heart palpitations from the stress of it anymore.

And don't forget to make sure these regions hold their primaries at different days, that way you often know who the party pick for head of state is going to be before you've cast your vote.  That's always nice.  Makes you feel like they really care about your thoughts and are willing to work hard to earn your vote.

Baruch

#31
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 08:44:03 PM
But they weren’t Yankees, they were British subjects...🤫

British explicative deleted ;-)  Yankee was what the British called them (Yankee Doodle Dandy was an insult).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#32
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2020, 09:10:51 PM
Would we?
Is 30% a majority?

And with regards to racial justice / policing reform, the general public is far ahead of Congress.  QED.
And Shoe can see minority rule in hers.  Again, which one would you prefer?

Lincoln was elected with 35% of the vote.  Without Lincoln the South would be its own country, or the whole Union would be more similar to 1860.  Except I expect a lot more races would have joined the Africans in the cotton fields .. so slavery is less racist.  Also North would have to admit that wage slavery was a thing too.  Did you know that Lincoln suppressed the (majority) Dem voters in the Union army in the 1864 election, to secure his reelection?  The majority of the North were Democrats, called Copperheads.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#33
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 17, 2020, 01:08:10 AM
Not my country of course, but how 'bout giving the right to vote to the 3.5 million Americans living in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.
Oh, and unless anyone can give areal good explanation, what about cutting out the electoral college? Or at least revising it completely.

We could always divide into France, Belgium and the Netherlands over language and religion ;-)  In the case of Belgium, agree to have a common religion but not divide over language (awkward compromise).  I see no reason to give anyone the vote, no matter where they live.  Unless of course they only vote the way I want them to ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#34
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 17, 2020, 01:29:26 AM
I 100% agree.  If it's land controlled by the US, then it should be incorporated into the US and therefore its people should enjoy the same rights as other Americans.  D.C. should have statehood as well for identical reasons.
You mean the electoral college?  Tell me about it.

Does your country have an electoral college?  Do you want one?

Every county (3000) should be independent city states, joined in a lose confederation (make Classical Greece great again) ;-)  How about a micro version of the pre-civil war conflict over congressional representation?  Every city state has to have the same number of voters, you can't just move from one city state to another without getting permission from both.  And domestically nobody can make babies until authorized, to keep the population static?  Otherwise you are trying to get one-up on the other city states.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 08:44:03 PM
But they weren’t Yankees, they were British subjects...🤫
Don't confuse him with the facts, he's on a roll...
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Cassia

#36
We are a far cry from the progressive climate when FDR worked his New Deal (adding things we take for granted such as Social Security and the FDIC to insure our bank accounts). The US had powerful labor unions as well as active communist and socialist parties. Bush and Trump ended their terms with the US economy in volatile, smoldering ruins. That suits the super wealthy 'investor class' who only need volatility. They have the capital to make money if valuations and interest rates go up -or- down. They don't want social stability.

Maybe Sleepy Joe will surprise us with some progressiveness. I have a silly gut feeling he may give it a go. Surprise us Joe !!!

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 17, 2020, 05:37:43 PM
Don't confuse him with the facts, he's on a roll...

Yes, there were no Yankees until the baseball team ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#38
Quote from: Cassia on December 17, 2020, 07:16:29 PM
We are a far cry from the progressive climate when FDR worked his New Deal (adding things we take for granted such as Social Security and the FDIC to insure our bank accounts). The US had powerful labor unions as well as active communist and socialist parties. Bush and Trump ended their terms with the US economy in volatile, smoldering ruins. That suits the super wealthy 'investor class' who only need volatility. They have the capital to make money if valuations and interest rates go up -or- down. They don't want social stability.

Maybe Sleepy Joe will surprise us with some progressiveness. I have a silly gut feeling he may give it a go. Surprise us Joe !!!


FDR had to work tooth and nail to get anywhere (bad domestic economy, bad world economy, resisting SCOTUS, attempted coup, attempted assassination).  The country was unified by WW II, after Japan attacked us.  Up until then public opinion could tolerate Japan (in China) and Italy (in Africa), and supported Germany (against communism).  But Hitler's treaty with Stalin, and shifting alliance from KMT to Japan in China, totally blew that narrative.  Hitler didn't have to declare war on the US.  The Soviet Union, after being invaded by Germany, didn't declare war on Japan until the end of 1945.  Hitler was a very stable genius ;-)

A great many of Americans hated FDR, for being rich, for being East Coast, for being Democrat (pro-South), for devaluing the dollar, for seizing the gold, for giving a nod and wink to the British Empire and to the Soviet Union.  The majority of Americans still hated the British Empire even after WW I and they certainly hated the Soviet Union (except among American intelligencia who fought against Franco in Spain).  His socialist attempts to stimulate the economy failed by 1937.  Lend-lease in 1940 saved him.  My father's father (anti-communist anarcho-capitalist) hated FDR and he wasn't alone.  Multiple people in DC knew the Japanese were going to attack shortly before it happened, and wanted it to happen.  WW II, and FDR dying on schedule (for Truman to step in after VP Wallace was dumped for being too friendly to the Soviet Union) made him a saint (same as Lincoln was hated in life but martyred into sainthood).  Republicans hate FDR on the dime, as they do Kennedy on the half.  This is why it took decades to build any monument to FDR in Washington DC.

I like FDR and Eleanor, after the fact, he had a hard job and did the best he could under the circumstances.  Same reason why I admire or feel sorry for Lincoln and Mary Todd.  The idea that Americans even know who FDR is, is laughable.  And the portrait of Lincoln (even recently) is hagiography.  As persons I like Truman and Eisenhower better than FDR.  FDR was slick even around his intimates.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Unbeliever

Quote from: Cassia on December 17, 2020, 07:16:29 PM
We are a far cry from the progressive climate when FDR worked his New Deal (adding things we take for granted such as Social Security and the FDIC to insure our bank accounts). The US had powerful labor unions as well as active communist and socialist parties. Bush and Trump ended their terms with the US economy in volatile, smoldering ruins. That suits the super wealthy 'investor class' who only need volatility. They have the capital to make money if valuations and interest rates go up -or- down. They don't want social stability.

Maybe Sleepy Joe will surprise us with some progressiveness. I have a silly gut feeling he may give it a go. Surprise us Joe !!!


FDR's predecessor tried hard to screw things up during the transition, he was hoping for support for the next election. It didn't work.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

trdsf

The main change that I'm welcoming is Presidential decisions not being made by a spoiled three year old.  Anything after that is gravy.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Cassia on December 16, 2020, 04:58:03 PM

Towards that direction I would be for:
-Popular vote only...end the electoral college
-Access to mandatory universal health and mental care
-End offshore tax evasion banking and corporations
-Decriminalization of recreational drug use and prostitution
-Simple more progressive tax rates (plus carbon use taxes, plus wealth tax for billionaires)
-Added taxes/fees for offshoring jobs and outsourcing labor.

What changes would you like to see?


I would like to see all that. In my fantasies, I would also like:

-stronger antitrust laws
-a justice system that focused more on rehabilitation
-an end to "stand your ground" laws and more serious consequences for people who recklessly endanger others with firearms
-limits on campaign spending
-reduced gerrymandering

Hydra009

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 17, 2020, 10:54:50 PM-reduced gerrymandering
Weird that people who get elected due to gerrymandering haven't stamped that out by now.  Ranked choice voting would do a lot to dampen its power to make it much easier to dispose of.  Ideally, an independent, non-partisan commission to draw up new districts along the Iowa model.

Mr.Obvious

"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Hydra009

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 18, 2020, 01:42:20 AM
Oh, and put a cap on the filibuster.
The Soul of the Senate?  You know, this is something we have in common with several other countries.  Sometimes used for good, sometimes for evil.

And fun fact: legislation that could do away with the filibuster could theoretically itself be filibustered.  Metabustered, if you will.