Casual Questions Thread
By - The_Egalitarian
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Based on the “For the People Act” and the various laws involving voting that have been cast around in the states, it’s pretty clear that the parties are struggling to find a system that is both secure and inclusive. All of the systems suggested right now anger either the Republicans or Democrats, for their own reasons. Does anyone have any ideas for what America could do that both parties could agree on? Side note: I see there is a megathread flair on this post. What’s a megathread?
Of course, I have my own idea, but I want to hear yours first
One of my friends said that America was conducting a genocide right now, and the media isn't reporting on it. Does anyone have an idea of what the hell he could be talking about?
What is the other beliefs of your friend? There a couple ways this could had been meant from hyperbole to immigration to abortion to extreme racism
No doubt it's some form of hyperbolic nonsense. You will have to ask them.
Some think legalized abortion is a form of genocide on minorities etc etc. Tons of rabbit holes for people to fall down
How would Biden getting super hands-on with Trump investigations, and the blue congressmen making a conscious effort to keep it in the news cycle like they did with the Russia investigation in 2017, effect the Democrats midterm chances?
Should Biden get involved in it, or tell the American people the ball is in Merrick Garland and the DOJ’s court?
It would destroy any shot of re-election against any halfway sane republican nominee unless they actually imprisoned him on rock solid, undeniable proof.
As of now, based on public information, all they have on Trump is circumstantial. There is no rock solid proof of a crime beyond him not properly filing the money he gave stormy Daniels. (Which would typically be a fine)
Despite the media's fervor, they never had proof Trump broke the law. Impeachment was a political dog n pony show, you don't need any proof to impeach. Indictments and convictions in a court of law are completely different.
They need a ton more than what they currently have to even indict trump, much less convict him.
Trump hasn't been charged the last 6 months because they don't have enough evidence to charge him.
There’s plenty of evidence for obstruction, at the minimum. Indictable, prosecutable evidence, which mueller testified to. The coverup is what gets you.
If there was plenty of evidence, then why no indictment over the past 6 months?
Sorry but I believe you were sold a bag of goods by opinion pieces that led you to believe there was "plenty of evidence".
I don't doubt you can link articles that imply grand things, but I find that most are incapable of explaining in their own words any actual proof of obstruction. They just assume their is because they read an article that implied there was.
The mueller testimony literally outlined the obstruction charges, the evidence, and the fact he can be charged after he leaves office. He’s currently under criminal investigation on multiple fronts. None of that is opinion. It’s clearly outlined fact- but it doesn’t surprise me a trump apologist would ignore that.
The DOJ not bringing charges against an ex president isn’t evidence there isn’t anything there. Try and be a tiny bit smarter than that.
Yes Trump could face charges since Jan 20th.
He hasn't and he won't. He won't because I've seen everything Mueller had and it was nothing.
It's why I knew you weren't going to point to anything that shows Trump's guilt, despite your unwavering belief it's there. Your trust is in what others claimed, not in what you yourself saw
It'd hurt Biden and Democrats really bad. Especially considering most of Democrat supporters are happy with the current way they're investigating. Biden ran on a platform of being an antithesis of Trump and bringing back government normalcy, copying Trump by being directly involved when its unnecessary would hurt him very much. Fox News will jump on him and repeat every criticism levied at Trump at Biden while also pulling whataboutism.
>Fox News will jump on him and repeat every criticism levied at Trump at Biden while also pulling whataboutism
True, but CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaLo, HuffPo, Guardian, etc etc would praise every moment of it and would gladly spend the next year wasting their time on Trump while continuing to ignore that we have kids in cages sleeping in tinfoil still
Maybe. Fox News, if i had to give any compliment, theres a level of consistency and trust in how they report. With the news site you listed, its a wildcard. Its really about the context to why Biden is taking over. If he takes over right now, I highly doubt any media platform is going to praise it.
> ignore that we have kids in cages sleeping in tinfoil still
It's not so much ignored as it was reported and is actively being addressed. It's not being reported anymore because Biden (unlike Trump) doesn't bring it up and they provided a [possible] resolution. Trump didn't offer a resolution and honestly just doubled down his stupid rhetoric. A lot of the BS Trump faced was his own doing.
> A lot of the BS Trump faced was his own doing.
Agree, but even when he didn't media made sure to make shit up. I cannot fault them for it though, left leaning media raked in massive money, gained huge number of new subscribers due to Trump. Turning Trump from an ignorant, inexperienced, toxic individual to satan, was good for business.
> It's not so much ignored as it was reported and is actively being addressed. It's not being reported anymore because Biden (unlike Trump) doesn't bring it up and they provided a [possible] resolution. Trump didn't offer a resolution and honestly just doubled down his stupid rhetoric.
Similarly, left leaning media customers don't like to see negative news if it cannot be blamed on republicans/white people. Hence, the rhetoric went from 110% concentration camp to migrant camps within a month.
The same activists, politicians and media that loudly proclaimed injustice, concentration camps etc during Trump admin, barely covered the issue when Obama admin was separating families and keeping kids in cages.
Left leaning media has little upside in presenting left leaders in negative light. They cannot completely ignore the news, but they can ignore some and downplay others. Just like Fox news coddle to Trump 80-90% of the time, and then have few segments questioning/attacking him.
On your second paragraph, I'd say the more pronounced difference in coverage is simply because Trump's administration was inept in PR and Trump himself. I agree that mainstream media does lean more progressive and call out Republican's more aggressively but I highly doubt a non-Trump GOP administration would have faced the onslaught of conflict the Trump administration did. Hell when Fox News and Trump starting fighting each other, that was when it was clear it was not the media that was the issue.
Want to quickly acknowledge that though there is Left-bias in most of the media, theres also the fact that GOP politicians lie a lot (more than Democrats based on the last study I read) and more of their numbers are just dumb. Means that there would be news against the GOP especially on fact-based reporting; discounting those talk news shows like Don Lemons show.
>It's not so much ignored as it was reported and is actively being addressed. It's not being reported anymore because Biden (unlike Trump) doesn't bring it up and they provided a [possible] resolution. Trump didn't offer a resolution and honestly just doubled down his stupid rhetoric. A lot of the BS Trump faced was his own doing.
Kids on cages, sleeping in tinfoil.
They called them concentration camps, but when a democrat does the same thing it's largely ignored or down played.
It's been 6 months and no one seems to care kids are still in cages, freezing in the AC and sleeping in tinfoil
>It's not being reported anymore because Biden (unlike Trump) doesn't bring it up and they provided a [possible] resolution
["The number of unaccompanied migrant children being kept in cramped government-detention facilities on the US southern border with Mexico has fallen sharply"](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56405009)
Also another important reason Trump had so much coverage is because of his "zero tolerance policy" that criminally prosecuted parents who crossed the border with their children, unique to his administration, which actively separated children from their parents shipping them to these facilities. Biden rescinded that order. Unaccompanied minors need to be held in custody and every administration excluding Trump could argue the problem was pushed on to them and they found the best resolution. Trump created a problem of his own doing and added extra liability and bad PR.
I see no mention of the cages and tinfoil blankets
No use of the term concentration camps.
Like I said, guess kids in cages is ok now
> guess kids in cages is ok now
And I've explained why its so. There was some bias against Trump but Trump did make an enemy out of the mainstream media plus a lot of the things reported was caused by Trump's or his team lack of control in messaging. Main point is that a lot of the "unfair treatment" towards Trump was Trump's own doing.
Ahh, so it's Trump's fault the media would present everything in such a hyperbolic and dishonest manner
Got it. So glad to hear their behavior wasn't their own fault.
> So glad to hear their behavior wasn't their own fault.
I said the opposite of that but I can tell when I'm getting baited. So I'll end it here.
As a current student of Job Corps, we are currently restricted to campus life 24/7 due to the Fed and Department of Labor. Any ideas or suggestions on how we the students could liberate ourselves and be allowed to go home again on weekends?
Is diversity in areas of race, ethnicity, religion, language etc. a benefit or hindrance when it comes to having a successful country?
A benefit. Lack of diversity leads to backward-looking, closed-minded stagnation. Whereas all cultural and scientific advancement comes from the blending and meeting of different ideas and modes of thought.
It comes down to one important decision. How does the nation decide on how to handle its minority?
You have a country like the US which uses the Constitution and [to their best] the rule of law that is written to be as equal as possible, as a unifying ideology. An ideology which most of the demographic can agree and get behind. So you get the benefits of diversity, new ideas and all, while maintaining a level of homogeneity
Or the country can decide to go the other way where they protect the majority or ruling demographic, or have laws explicitly written to protect one demographic over the other. This is where diversity is a major hinderance.
This is a lot to simply say that diversity is a major benefit if the nation can somehow create a homogeneous factor among the groups of people. In the US and Singapore, it was the rule of law.
As long as people put their national identity ahead of their racial identity or whatever, then it doesn't really matter. Americans who happen to be Muslim don't cause any problems, but Muslims who happen to live in America might.
What about all the Christians who put identity center first?
They are equally destabilizing. I guess people have an issue with me using Muslims as my example.
>They are equally destabilizing.
Based on what? When was the US destabilized?
Just off the top of my head, how many abortion clinics have been attacked in America?
I think it depends on the context and history of said diversity. There are nations that have managed a diverse population reasonable well (USA, Switzerland, Singapore), and those that haven't (Yugoslavia/Syria/Ethiopia) the difference being internal institutions and the history that brought about that diversity.
I think the more you point out people's differences, the less unity a country will have.
Ah yes, discussing the fact that racism exists is the *real* problem! Not the fact that racism exists.
> Ah yes, discussing the fact that racism exists is the real problem! Not the fact that racism exists.
Do you always like to project? is race the only thing on your mind? nothing I said even resembles what you're trying to imply.
Differences aren't just racial, ask the Balkan whites why they don't get along with each other. I come from a country where everyone is of the same color, same language, same religion but we have different tribes and we can't united because of that.
Reference *very* badly needed, but I read a reasonably persuasive quantitative study with a conclusion along the lines of **"if you can categorize your population into 2 categories- majority race/religion and minority race/religion, then the 60/40 balance is most prone to civil war, whereas 50/50 is better, and 90/10 is the most stable."**
Obviously there were a billion other factors to consider, and any statement like that is a gross oversimplification. But it was a really interesting study, and I'll look for it tomorrow morning.
Well it might be "Ethnic Diversity and the Spread of Civil War" by Natalija Novta, but I can't see the pdf without an account.
Is the term "birthing people" the new Latinx?
I dont think so. Latinx was born from the far left, not accepted by anyone it supposedly represents (ironic white people us it more), and it serves no benefit to anyone. "Birthing people" which I do agree came from the Left also but I disagree its as useless as Latinx.
>“The budget requests $26 million to reduce maternal mortality and eliminate race-based disparities in outcomes among ‘birthing people.'”
I believe this is the comment thats causing controversy. Yes one of the main reasons is to create gender-neutral and inclusive language. But I see it's also an attempt to be a step ahead or just be more precise because of the increasing variety in ways babies are born and possibly will be born. Hypothetically say artificial wombs are a thing at scale, you'd have to make clear that $26 million is intended for those giving birth naturally.
I really wonder what right-wing think tank consultant gets paid to hunt down these obscure things and then feed them to conservatives to tell them to be outraged about. Like, what course of happenstance in life leads you to that job?
"Birthing person/parent" have been a very popular thing to pearl clutch for a while now. Especially among the transphobic circles
It's really not much different than say J K Rowling crying about using accurate and inclusive language like "people who mensturate"
First time I've heard of it. Yet another example of the right-wing media ecosystem creating tempests in a teacup that they all get their underwear in an uproar about, yet the rest of the universe has no awareness of.
Joe Biden, the president of the united states of America literally out the wording in a proposed bill
Not sure id call that "obscure"
You are really desperate to make this one particular culture war item happen. It's really weird. And like...you know everyone will have moved on to next thing in a couple days anyway, right? This is an even worse attempt than making people mad about Dr. Seuss.
Man I have voted Democrat every election since Kerry (the first presidential election I could vote) but the Latinx thing completely missed how the Spanish language works and this birthing people thing is in a government document is completely embarrassing.
>this birthing people thing is in a government document is completely embarrassing.
Why? Who gives a shit? How does it affect your life? Why do you feel the need to be riled up about it?
Same goes for "Latinx." If you don't like it, then don't use it and move on with your life rather than harping on it forever. You know, like most Latinos do.
> birthing people thing is in a government document is completely embarrassing.
Honestly not as bad or embarrassing. Birthing people, though initially intended to be a progressive push, does have the potential to serve a non-partisan purpose. With the increase in surrogacy pregnancy and the possibility of artificial wombs, there is going to be a point where the budget language needs to make it clear that money is going to people who are giving natural births. .
Latinx is stupid and, in my personal opinion, one of the biggest untalked example of White supremacy/privilege/etc..
I'm the one trying to make this culture war item happen?
Not the President of the United States who put it in his budget proposal?
Yes, you. And your kind. Nobody gives a shit about it but you're incessantly trying to hunt down insignificant nonsense like this, throwing it all at the wall to see what sticks, in hopes that one item will become the next Fox News outrage du jour. Grow up.
You claim no one cares but ignore the President himself used it. Just going to handwaved that one away?
Correct, nobody cares about word choice. Nobody is handwaving anything away, because there is nothing to handwave.
You should come with an explanation of why this is a scandal or even worth mentioning, since you're acting like it's worse than Watergate or, god forbid, wearing a tan suit.
More hyperbole from you.
No one claimed it was worse than Watergate.
But to claim the US president is some one item leftie is moronic
I don't know what a "one item leftie" is, but I didn't claim the US president was anything.
If the usage of this random phrase really bothers you so much, you probably need to reexamine a lot of things about your life.
It's extremely funny, because it couldn't make it clearer that people are just parroting someone else's talking points instead of coming up with their own. I know the voters aren't all out here reading budget proposals.
If by that you mean "a phrase that a few weirdos on the left use that gets completely blown out of proportion by the rightwing as 'political correctness gone amok 1984 newspeak'", then yes, it absolutely is.
If you don't mean that, then please clarify.
Biden used it in a Budget proposal
Are you claiming Biden is "Weirdo on the left"?
>If by that you mean "a phrase that a few weirdos on the left use that gets completely blown out of proportion by the rightwing as 'political correctness gone amok 1984 newspeak'", then yes, it absolutely is.
I don't think you realize it but it's past the point of just weirdos using it. A democratic representative used it and more importantly, Biden's new budget proposal uses it instead of mothers. I don't think it can get more official than that.
Great, politicans use a lot of weird terms in legalese that don't get used in the common tongue. That doesn't mean regular people are gonna use it.
This now makes me wonder what some legal effects this may have if the Biden administration keeps using terms like this.
What happens if they instruct an agency to do something regarding "birthing persons" participation in a program. Who is that? Women? Women who have given birth? Women who are pregnant?
The courts and a layperson know what a woman is but not a "birthing person".
This seems like something incredibly dumb that we could get some federal court ruling on what this strange term means.
> Great, politicans use a lot of weird terms in legalese that don't get used in the common tongue. That doesn't mean regular people are gonna use it.
Hence the jab about latinx. Academia, journalists, activists and pandering politicians jump to using new words, that general public doesn't care about at the moment.
Would you say the USA is the best example in the world for a successful melting pot? It didn't work out nearly as well in Europe. In the USA it's mostly limited to the coastal areas, but still better imo.
> Would you say the USA is the best example in the world for a successful melting pot?
That and Singapore, and the big two reasons are they eliminated/neutered the native population and most of the population have the same origins (immigrants). If an American pulled some ancestral claim, one can easily find a point of ancestry to contradict and that will never change unless US gets destroyed from memory. Exception are Native Americans but for sad historical reasons they're inconsequential and many of them have similar origins as most Americans because they got kicked off their land or had it stolen/reduced.
All nations are a 'melting pot' if you go back far enough.
I agree, it's all a matter of speed, but time is critical...
I think America is a good example for European nationalists to point to when talking about limiting migration.
Diversity has been a disaster. No group is satisfied with the current situation, and racial tensions have only gotten worse in the last decade.
> racial tensions have only gotten worse in the last decade.
Lol... no it hasn't. I guess if you do superficial viewing of mainstream and Fox News, it looks like it. Quite honestly the worst of the George Floyd protests pale in comparison to the LA Riots. Now that was true racial tension.
I'd say the level of racial tension is comparable and more consistent.
No. I've read your other comments, and to highlight it for other readers, you're pushing subtle white supremacist talking points.
There used to be a guy on this board who was an explicit supporter of a white ethnostate. The account got banned, but I always wonder if they’re still her under a different one
I don't think thats true especially compared to countries that have active insurgencies or civil wars over such differences. Do we have internal issues? Yes. Is it a "disaster"? 100% No
America has some extremely difficult issues despite being relatively developed and having a high standard of living. God forbid we ever had another great depression, I think the fault lines would really begin to crack open.
>Diversity has been a disaster
Wow, so we're just straight up doing white nationalist talking points on here now?
Not now. Always has skirt the line
Dude argues that "the great replacement" is real ln other post and has talk of the need of "all people to secure a future for their children.", which is way too close to "the 14 words" to be accidental
Oh yeah I was being kind of facetious in the way I wrote that. OP is clearly a full on Very Fine Person.
Arguing that diversity is bad is like white nationalist talking points 101, so I'm not really convinced that this is a good-faith discussion to begin with.
But of course you can "reasonably argue diversity leads to adversity and unhappiness." That's because diversity is an inherent part of any human society, and any human society is going to involve some amount of adversity and unhappiness. So it's easy to confuse cause and effect...especially if your goal is to balkanize groups by race (or whatever the relevant factor is in your country of choice).
>The cause is obviously bad people who are racists. These people have less opportunity to cause unhappiness in a place without diversity.
No, they just find a different thing other than race to be bigoted about. Tribe, religion, language, ancestry, whatever the fuck, they'll find some reason to hate other groups.
Because there is no such thing as "a place without diversity." In America, race (which is a fuzzy concept we made up and variously codified over time, and does not transfer over easily to other societies) is the defining feature of our national caste system. Imagining a country without racial distinctions does not mean imagining a place without diversity; it just means other differences between groups would be more at the forefront of people's minds.
In other places, it's something else. Look at Israel and Palestine. Israelis and Palestinians can each be any color of the rainbow, falling under many different "races" according to the American system of categorizing people. The thing they hate each other based on isn't "race" at all; it's ethnic origin (and to some extent religion, but over there religion is part and parcel of ethnic origin, much more so than a belief system). That's just one example. Things look different everywhere whether or not the issues are "racial."
>These people are obviously unhappy about that and diversity is failing these people right now.
What are you even talking about? The fact that a country exists which contains white, black, Latino, Asian etc. people is "diversity." The fact that some of those groups get the short end of the stick is not "diversity failing them."
>but I think acknowledging that right now this is not the case is not white nationalist.
Well yeah, and that's not what OP was saying. OP was saying literally "diversity is bad." There's no other way to interpret that.
White nationalism is impossible in a country as diverse as the US. That's not what I'm advocating for.
I think it's responsible to say that this experiment with promoting diversity as a virtue has left every group alienated and unsatisfied. No one is happy with the current situation. Our country is less cohesive, true racial hatred is at an all time high, and every political issue has a racial tinge to it.
>That's not what I'm advocating for.
Then what, precisely, is it that you are advocating for?
Diversity, you say, has been a disaster. So you want to reduce diversity.
I'm unfamiliar with ways of reducing existing diversity that aren't generally called "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide." Which of the two is your preferred method?
First of all, we need an immigration moratorium in place for at least the next 50 years. Every major wave of immigration was met with a period of little to no immigration so newer populations could settle and integrate. Since 1965 there's been an unrelenting stream of immigration (Joe Biden's words) and no break in between.
Next, we need to deport the millions of people who are here illegally. Every month or so a mid-sized city worth of people is illegally migrating to the US.
Companies that hire illegals should be heavily penalized, a border wall should be built, and it should be crystal clear to people across the border that illegal migration is unacceptable and they're not going to get to stay here.
Finally, we need an understanding of race that promotes respect. If your parents walked hundreds of miles to get to this country, you don't get to tear down statues and insult the people who settled it. It isn't your place to snub White people or criticize White history and culture when you're living in a city that was built with their labor.
The problem isn't that different groups exist in America, it's that they all tend to be adversarial towards each other due to historical grievances. Everyone should be treated with respect and dignity, including minorities; but the respect needs to be mutual.
>"I'm not advocating for white nationalism"
> *advocates for white nationalism but dressed up in nicer language*
Yeah ok Richard Spencer. Within a couple decades, white people will be a minority in the US, and there is *nothing you can do about it.*
So we are back to calling Hispanics non white again?
> Within a couple decades, white people will be a minority in the US, and there is nothing you can do about it.
I don't see why you think this is an own. America has enough racial issues as it is and White people are already starting to think and vote like minorities (Blacks vote Democrat by about 90%)
This situation isn't good for any race or democracy as a whole.
And what specifically do you have a problem with what I said?
>I don't see why you think this is an own.
Because it's something that clearly horrifies you, whereas I'm fine with it. In fact, it's a good thing in many respects, most prominently that it means white nationalist politics will no longer be viable at a national level. No more Trumps. Sounds pretty great.
I heard an American complain there are far too many people in power who are there just as a favorable discrimination. Do you have any source which deals with it from an unbiased perspective? It's one of the most important and interesting questions but also the most incendiary.
You're not going to get an unbiased source on this from someone who declares that "diversity is a disaster." Whatever you get from them will be one or steps removed from Stormfront.
My biased opinion is - comparatively better than almost all other countries. Of course that’s not to say there aren’t issues- far from it.
Is it hypocritical of Biden and Fauci that any talk of Covid accidentally leaking from a Chinese lab was automatically written off as Anti-Asian hate while Trump was President, but now that he’s gone, the two of them are both publicly pondering the idea that might’ve been what happened?
No, because you're misrepresenting what happened.
Talking about the lab leak theory was not "automatically written off as anti-Asian hate."
People just didn't believe Trump when he insisted on the lab leak theory because he's Trump and he lies with every word that comes out of his mouth.
Also, Trump was (separately from advancing any particular theory about the origin of the virus) stirring up anti-Asian hate and using the virus to stoke it.
Investigating the origin of the virus without having an identity-politics agenda is the responsible thing to do, which is why it's good that we now have a real administration who will do responsible things.
I disagree. The responsible thing to do is find a way to make people take vaccines. We developed the vaccines and treatments very fast and this should be used as a basis for the future. But we have to make laws to force people to take the vaccines or else it's useless. The racist and bigoted thing to do would be to blame China. The WHO and the UN have both said that lab leak is false. It is extremely racist to continue to investigate China after they have been cleared. Joe Biden has a good relationship with China and poking the bear would not be a good idea.
> The WHO and the UN have both said that lab leak is false.
There is major conflicts of interest with these two organization and China.
> It is extremely racist to continue to investigate China after they have been cleared.
It is not when new evidence have emerged to show otherwise. China is well-known to suppress data and evidence; only the CCP knows the true story. The claim that PRC created the virus being false is still holding true even for Biden and Fauci. What the point of contention is that scientist brought this disease from wherever they discovered it to the virus lab and allowed it to be release. Hypothetically, rather than COVID starting off in a rural or second tier town it got started in a major international city (Wuhan) because of their carelessness. A carelessness characteristic well known in PRC society; if thats racist then Chinese people are racist to themselves lol.
Your post history is quite the entertaining rollercoaster.
How do you mean?
>If I were president today, I would not be taking China's word when it comes to the coronavirus. American scientists and health experts should be allowed in the country to determine how the virus started and to help contain its spread.
>February 26, 2020
[I think this piece my Matt Yglesias has a good overview of the whole fiasco. ](https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-medias-lab-leak-fiasco). The media and health orgs jumped the gun on the wet market theory in response to Tom Cotton making vauge references to a bio weapon. Fauci was originally undecided about the origin. Media figures and gatekeepers like Facebook really went hard on calling the lab leak a lie because it was seen to be conflated with bioweapon conspiracy theories and the Trump admin.
Fauci ran his mouth all through 2020, with the mask debacle, vaccine doomerism, and weird communications about effective mitigation. But Biden didn't seem to make much statements on the lab leak theory. I can't find any statements of him denying the theory while on the campaign trail.
Can the U.S. Senate vote on a house-passed bill from a prior session?
As the title indicates, I believe the U.S. Senate can take up bills that have passed the house, but in a prior session of Congress (say right after a new Congress is elected and seated). I was debating a friend who is a political science professor and I stated that there’s no rule that the senate has that prevents it, however he said that the house passed bills are null and void at the end of a Congress, and thus need to be reintroduced. I don’t see any rule anywhere that states this overtly. What do you all think?
Senators can, themselves, introduce legislation. Not all legislation begins in the House. It's common that Senators and Reps work together to ensure that identical bills are before each body of Congress at the same time in an effort to make the process easier.
Ultimately, the requirement is that both the House and Senate vote the same bill into law. Which comes first doesn't matter.
That's not what they're talking about. They're asking whether a bill could be passed by having for instance the 2019-2020 House and 2021-2022 Senate vote for it while neither the 2019-2020 Senate nor the 2021-2022 House vote for it
The answer to that question is no, but I'm pretty sure that their political science professor friend is more qualified than me and probably most of this sub to explain the exact details of why
Ah, yes, misinterpreted the question. Thought they were asking about why Schumer is bringing old bills from prior sessions to a vote despite knowing they’ll be filibustered.
Why did Bernie Sanders drop out in 2020 in April and not take it to the convention like he did in 2016?
There's an interesting article in Politico [here](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/09/barack-obama-joe-biden-2020-campaign-178115) that describes Obama's behind-the-scenes influence:
> Obama mostly stuck to his pledge not to interfere in the race, but in 2019 there was one enormously important exception. In mid-November at a Democratic donor event he weighed in forcefully on the left vs. centrist argument that was then dominating the race. He warned Democratic candidates not to confuse actual voters with “left-leaning Twitter feeds.” He said that voters “don’t want to see crazy stuff,” that America is “less revolutionary than it is interested in improvement,” and that politicians pushing immigration policies that deny the existence of a border “may be in for a rude shock.” . .
> At the time of those comments, several of Obama’s closest advisers, who all opposed Sanders, told me in interviews that Sanders was a spent force, a mistake that many observers made at the time. Obama was publicly silent for the remainder of the campaign. But one of his closest advisers issued a warning: “If Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something.”
> “Over the last few weeks [before Bernie dropped out], [Obama's] had multiple conversations with candidates, including Sen. Sanders, about how to best position the Democratic Party to win in November,” said a source familiar with those calls. “While the content of those conversations remain private, there was always agreement that winning in the fall was paramount.”
This, particularly in the context of the onset of the pandemic, gives some oxygen to the idea that the threat of Trump winning may have tipped the scales for Bernie when it came to dropping out.
[This article](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/politics/obama-biden-democratic-primary.html) in The New York Times entitled *Accelerate the Endgame: Obama's Role in Wrapping Up the Primary* says essentially the same thing:
> Then, in the weeks after it became clear that Mr. Biden was the party’s near-certain nominee, Mr. Obama — telling a friend he needed to “accelerate the endgame” — had at least four long conversations with his former vice president’s remaining rival, Senator Bernie Sanders. Mr. Obama’s efforts to ease the senator out of the race played a significant role in Mr. Sanders’s decision to end his bid and endorse Mr. Biden, according to people close to the Vermont independent.
I think it was for a few reasons:
1. After going into Super Tuesday with decent momentum and Biden being at the center of harassment allegations the entire primary, he got clobbered in the polls and Biden had a significant lead at that point.
2. People realized Covid wasn’t gonna last two weeks and we were at the beginning of a possibly two year long health crisis. We had a virus tearing through the country with no word on when there’d be a treatment or vaccine. Staying in till the convention when the first priority needed to be addressing the pandemic would have made Sanders look super selfish to voters, and he knew that.
3. Sanders assumed Trump was a joke in 2016 and Clinton would’ve been able to win easily despite her flaws. Since he was proven wrong, and saw that Trump was a legitimate threat, he made more of an effort to publicly support Biden than he did with Hillary, and that included an early endorsement.
4. Biden was more humble and less full of himself than Hillary Clinton, and was more willing to come to compromises with Sanders to get him and his supporters on board.
I think it was for two reasons:
A) Covid hit stateside. Since his campaign was aggressively local and based on in-person events, continuing with those events could have caused the virus to spread much more. Without those events, his campaign was done for, so he had to drop out.
B) In 2016, he didn't know how much of a threat Trump would be. Having more time to craft a cohesive party was not as much of a concern. That changed in 2020, so by dropping out, he allowed Biden more time to act as the presumptive nominee in order to get the party on board. In such a critical election, there could have been a serious difference between 7 months of Biden as the nominee and 6 months.
C) Biden was beating Bernie by a whole lot more than Clinton ever was. On Super Tuesday in 2016, Bernie was approaching Clinton in polling, and momentum was on his side. On Super Tuesday 2020, Biden was gaining momentum and had already built a near-unsurpassable lead.
D) Bernie was too edgy in 2016 to expect to have a serious role in a (pragmatic and cautious) Clinton administration. By 2020, his views had become more embraced by the party, and he had more reason to play nice to gain influence with the incoming admin.
I like your first two reasons a lot /u/scratchedrecord_ \- just thought these two were pretty big, too.
> On Super Tuesday in 2016, Bernie was approaching Clinton in polling, and momentum was on his side. On Super Tuesday 2020, Biden was gaining momentum and had already built a near-unsurpassable lead.
While it's true Biden was winning by more (edit: or at least he definitely was a few days after Super Tuesday), it at least should have been clear Bernie had no chance after South Carolina in 2016 too. People knew going in that Sanders was almost certainly going to lose the state and likely other southern states to come, but losing 73-27 showed he was going to get annihilated across the South (which in fact he was) to a degree that it would be impossible to make up elsewhere given the proportional delegate allocation for all Democratic primary contests. Super Tuesday, far from showing Sander's momentum, only made that more clear with Clinton's lead swelling to nearly 200 delegates, a margin that Bernie would never really get closer than again
He did go on a run in mid March after Super Tuesday when there was a string of mostly caucus states (this started after his surprise win in Michigan as the margin there was close (so Clinton got a similar amount of delegates) and Clinton won Mississippi on the same day 83-17, so the combined results led to her lead expanding), but he wasn't even able to get back to where he was after Super Tuesday
Also while Sanders was certainly polling higher against Clinton than he had earlier in the primary by the time Super Tuesday rolled around, he still trailed her by a lot. Nationally he was down on average by about 14%
So Val Demings is running against senator Marco Rubio in 2022. The odds are against her, but could she be the start to a better organized Florida Democratic Party? Stacey Abrams and Beto O’Rourke both lost after an uphill election during midterms and became activists focusing on their state. Could Demings follow a similar route?
Can Florida Democrats get any worse than they already are? I think she has the right credentials to be a force in Florida politics, but it also comes down to Latino outreach. Have Democrats learned their lesson yet?
I've reached a point where it wouldn't surprise me if her Hispanic outreach was to start using the term LatinX
Does it matter if the virus came from a lab or from a bat?
Yes. If it came from a lab then they would have had far more info that could have helped create the vaccine faster.
If it came from a Lab then the W.H.O. is a completely compromised organization that needs to be broken up
We don’t want it to happen again. We should understand the real cause in order to take appropriate measures to prevent it from happening again.
Also, within the context of the broader political discussion, I think its become an important distinction.
So let's just say it leaked out of a lab for now. What does that leave us with? It leaves us with a couple of concering developments.
First, a whole lot of nominally reputable scientists and public health officials pushed a lie on the public. And even worse, by their own admission they did that not because of anything to do with their field of expertise, but because of concerns over a broader political narrative.
Second, social media giants would have routinely suppressed the actual orgins of the virus under the excuse of preventing misinformation.
Third, a lot of people, even now, admittedly refuse to even consider the possibility of a lab leak because it would give Trump a "win."
To address these concerns. 1) people with expert knowledge in a subject need to stop claiming that education gives them some super authority to "guide the uneducated masses." The folks who studied how viruses spread from person to person never really had any expert knowledge in where covid came from, but they tried to use their creditials to insert themselves into the conversation to push a preferred political narrative. Society needs to stop tolerating these interventions. 2) social media giants just need to stop trying to suppress "misinformation" in most cases. (I can see some exceptions for violence.) Today's misinformation pretty regularly turns into tomorrow's truth. 3) the "I believe science" folks should really actually try believing science, even if that does result in Trump getting a win.
Of course a lot of this depends on where covid actually did come from. Which is why I think its important that the origin is identified.
Oh, and as a side note. I've never understood how associating the outbreak with wet markets was somehow less racist. Continuing the western stereotype that Chinese people are disgusting folks who eat odd shit always felt like the much more racist origin story than "a brutal communist dictatorship was incompetent."
What lie are you talking about? And if not the expert who are we to listen to? Google doctors who watched a few hours of “medical research” on YouTube?
There is still no agree upon origin of the virus. And with science things change, that’s the whole point when you get new data and evidence.
Don’t twist science for your own version of the truth.
Well, it *came* from a bat one way or another. Some try really hard to conflate "lab leak" with "engineered" -- the latter didn't happen.
So lab leak is "were scientists studying the virus in bats the vector for the zoonotic jump" or "were people in a wet market with live and dead bats the vector for the zoonotic jump" and honestly, it really doesn't matter.
I mean put it this way -- if you've got a lab with a few scientists not working as safely as they should with the same species of bats that are being kept live and openly butchered in a wet market 10 miles away, does it *matter*? Your lab can't possibly be any *laxer* than a wet market, which is like a machine designed to encourage viruses to jump species and infect humans.
Now if it had been engineered, or if it was a strain that didn't exist in the wild? That's different.
I mean, we should probably be looking at lab safety and whether/how GOF research is necessary. But to most of the world, vaccines and therapeutics are more important at this stage in the game.
SARS has escaped Chinese labs [twice before](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/). If SARS-CoV-2 also escaped from a Chinese lab, then there needs to be serious international talks about punishment from sanctions to decoupling industries from them.
> decoupling industries from them.
This has to happen first before any tangible punishment can come about. Any sanctions or punishment will hurt the sanctioning country. So theres a major conflict of interest in doling out punishment.
Politically, it matters, because if it does turn out it came from a lab, Republicans will use that to stir up anti-China xenophobia in the coming election cycles (at least as long as it looks like covid is still relevant to voters) and of course Trump will use that to distract from the fact that he failed miserably at the biggest challenge of his presidency.
Geopolitically it might matter because if it turns out it came from a lab, China's lack of transparency will look even worse, and it will make them look more incompetent on the world stage. But I'm not sure how much that will matter given their economic power. They're already able to push most smaller countries around due to said economic power and I don't know that a loss of credibility on this front will matter at all.
I think the loss of credibility and trust will hurt them long-term. You're right in that China's economic power allows them to maintain a pseudo global power influence but it isn't authentic. PRC can't build alliances built on trust like how the US does and will have a difficult time trying to get benefits which no amount of money could buy.
The political play won't be xenophobia by the right
It will be "Liberals codling of China may have cost lives putting their feelings over getting the facts quicker to help make the vaccine"
Very likely. Nothing like accusing your opponents of cozying up to dictatorships while cozying up to dictatorships yourself.
Why does it seem hopeless trying to domesticate the M.E.? What is it in it which makes it such a hard nut?
The notion of domesticating the Middle East is part of the problem. They have so many countries up in their business, including other countries from the Middle East. It exacerbates even minor governance and foreign policy issues.
> Why does it seem hopeless trying to domesticate the M.E.?
Parts of the Middle East and more specifically Afghanistan. A majority of the Middle East is mostly stable and friendly towards the US. E.g. Gulf states and Northern Africa excluding Libya.
Afghanistan is a hard nut because the region is extremely diverse and for the most part never had a unified controlling entity including the time Taliban ruled it post-USSR. Outside of a dictator or a genocide, theres no way to create a unified government in Afghanistan.
Stable? Friednly? What about Syria? Iran? Iraq? Sudan? Lybia? Lebanon? and to esome extent Turkey.
From a policy perspective what is the difference between Biden’s immigration policies and Trumps?
So apparently [Democrats could have annulled a lot of Trump-era easing of regulations with their simple majority](https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-senate-democrats-reversed-few-100029981.html) on things like LGBT and environmental protections but instead they chose not to within the permitted timeframe, so now they can't.
Is there a particular reason why they didn't?
What generally would you like to see for LGBT protections?
Because there is no theater in quick easy action. Theater = money. Now they can scream about the evils of republicans when fundraising.
*We need your support to stop the discrimination*
Why do stuff for free when you can get paid to talk about doing it instead
Please follow thread specific rules.
>We can’t have some states following Democracy and others employing Fascism, right?
We absolutely can. That's the future of the US if we continue on the current course of inaction. We're already doing it to a large extent—Republican-controlled states are all aggressively gerrymandering, thus maximizing GOP representation in Congress, while all the large Democratic states are having their districts drawn by nonpartisan commissions. If California and New York were to aggressively gerrymander, they could counteract the Republican rigging and at least end up with a Congress that looks more like what the nation's voters as a whole want. But they won't, because Democrats actually believe in democracy and fair elections...even when playing fair means letting fascists win, apparently.
Of course, that particular future we're headed for will quickly degrade into an overall dysfunction of democracy in the country at large. A country and an economy can't really function effectively in such a scenario, where state governments (and ultimately the federal government) completely lack legitimacy. I'm not sure that the Republicans working toward permanent one-party rule fully understand this—it will mean economic devastation throughout the country, as a functioning economy depends to a large extent on a healthy civil society.
> If California and New York were to aggressively gerrymander, they could counteract the Republican rigging and at least end up with a Congress that looks more like what the nation's voters as a whole want. But they won't, because Democrats actually believe in democracy and fair elections...even when playing fair means letting fascists win, apparently.
New York can and there's a good chance they will (from the current 19-8 to as much as [23-3](https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1387106934025854979)). They have a commission drawing the initial attempt at a map, but the New York legislature just needs to reject those maps twice and then draw their own maps. Illinois almost certainly will as well (from 13-5 to potentially [14-3](https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1399859335329636356)), as will Maryland (though in their case it's more maintaining the current gerrymander since there's not much more they can do at this point with it already being a 7-1 state)
For California, it's not a question of if they will or won't. The voters, despite opposition from elected Democrats in the state (including Pelosi), made that against the state constitution before the 2010 redistricting cycle
At this point I bet a concerted effort could get the voters to reverse that preference in light of the what Repubicans are doing and frankly, I think the CA Democrats should try to fight fire with fire.
Considering every voter in California will have their member of Congress made mostly meaningless by Republican gerrymandering in other states, and Manchin is refusing to act like he has some sense, I don't see what other options there are to have elections still matter at this point.
Close to 100% of Republicans are going to vote against a hypothetical "let Democrats draw districts unfairly" proposition. That's still ~40% of the state
That means you need to get over 80% of the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in the state onboard, which seems unlikely given (1) the failure of less controversial propositions that had the backing of the state Democratic party and (2) the success when they make it to the ballot of ballot measures implementing independent redistricting in states regardless of partisan lean across the country
Maybe they can just basically deceive the voters in a ballot initiative with misleading and confusing wording. That's what they did here in Missouri to redo gerrymandering. I guess if everyone's a liar and fraud, might as well go all in.
I mean, there are a lot of things that ought to be done to protect the country against Republicans, which are difficult and therefore won't be done by Democrats. I'm just saying what *could* be done.
What’s the Republicans’ backup plan if Trump dies or otherwise gets taken off the board?
Honestly, I think Trump is the backup plan. The Republicans haven't really had the backed-up Trump even when it made political sense. So I think there going to push hard for Desantis and try to disadvantage Trump where possible. This is complicated by the fact that Trump could just run as an Independent and hand it to the Dems. But yeah Desantis is an easy 2nd choice for the GOP if not first.
Not to sound ghoulish but it might be the GOP's best situation, electorally speaking. Trump could derail a primary at any point in time, with him off the board sooner than later, the GOP could have a normal primary process.
Imo there are any number of Republicans who could be good to strong candidates ( Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, Mike Pompeo, Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Tim Scott, Kristi Noem, etc) and almost all of them would commit less unforced errors than Trump.
It would allow the GOP to run on the aspects of Trumpism that worked, while cutting off the self sabotaging parts.
Too early to tell if Biden will be a strong incumbent by 2024, but I think the GOP has a bench that could beat him that doesn't include Trump. (And before someone mentions it, I don't think Cotton's charisma is that bad that it would be a killer in a general vs Biden. The age difference would be extremely noticeable. The age thing also applies for DeSantis and Hawley in particular.)
Tom Cotton? Charisma? What?
Does...does Mike Pompeo have as much charisma as Tom Cotton?
Should have put "lack of", but was trying to say I don't think the apparent deficit is bad enough that it would be a insurmountable hinderance in a national campaign. Guess it's a subjective thing though.
Backup plan in terms of what? 2024? Despite all the bluster, I doubt he runs even assuming he's healthy enough to do so (which I doubt at his age). I think once he gets over the sting of losing, he'll find other shit to do. The other response here ran down a list of potential candidates.
As far as future of the party's direction? Probably what you see now. Centrists/moderates and also far-right MAGAists, depending on the district/state they represent. The media seems to suggest this is a major problem and/or the GOP has a civil war on their hands, but this is not much different from the Dems who also have centrists/moderates but also far-left Progressives.
A mad rush to take his position, wherein "serious politicians" like Marco Rubio or Ron DeSantis, fascists like Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley, entertainers like Tucker Carlson, and dipshits like Mike Pompeo all fall over themselves to out-Trump each other in a pre-primary for 2024.
The party apparatus will double down on Trumpism as electoral strategy, which is to say lots of white identity/grievance politics, conspiracy theories, and (importantly) aggressive efforts to rig elections as we are seeing in Texas and Georgia among other states.
The Republican electorate will continue to be radicalized with conspiracy theories and against democracy, rejecting any candidate who so much as suggests that any election where a Republican didn't win was legitimate. But it will be in a less organized fashion where unpredictable new conspiracy theories will take root rather than largely just following from whatever Trump says.
Why can't progressives see that having anyone to the left of mitch McConnell is a major victory in west Virginia? Nobody is winning a Senate seat in the state by being even a millimeter left of where Manchin is sitting right now.
To be fair, it's probably preferable for many Dems for Manchin to kick the bipartisanship, get a whole ton of legislation passed, and just lose reelection, right?
I think the Hashtag Resistance types are the ones who are calling Manchin a Republican more than progressives at this point.
I did just see The Hill quoting the leader of a progressive activist group talking about plans to primary Manchin and Sinema from the left, so clearly there are a few people out there laboring under the delusion that getting a better senator out of WV than him is possible. I imagine that interview was selected for the article for dramatic effect, though. Most everyone else understands that Democrats can't do shit about his obstinacy other than pray that Biden's senate magic can somehow get him to reverse course.
Eh, of course a progressive group is going to want to primary those two. Although I think taking down Sinema in a primary is not actually that crazy. I don’t even think Arizona Dems like her at this point.
Yeah, Sinema can get primaried for sure. She was literally only elected because of not being a Republican. But a progressive, much as I'd like another one in the Senate, is probably not the choice for a very purple state.
Despite what Biden suggested, the guy votes along party lines more often than against.
I don't understand Democrat anger here. The dude is a Democrat senator in a red state. If that seat was open in 2022, a Republican would win fairly easily, and not a moderate at that. Is that what the Democrats would prefer?
If Manchin was to actually switch parties, it would doom even the stuff Dems could pass through Reconciliation.
He may be the best that West Virginia can produce, but that's beside the point.
He is aware that there is a threat to voting rights from Republicans and has said as much in his op-ed.
But he also takes several completely nonsensical positions along with that—namely that any bill is by definition bad if it is "partisan", where "partisan" means that only one party supports it. But he has already acknowledged the Republican threat to voting rights...so of course Republicans aren't going to support a bill that defends voting rights against their attacks...it's circular logic and it's totally insane.
He's also attached, whether because he's delusional or because he just doesn't give a shit, to this fantasy of bipartisanship and keeps insisting that things can get done by negotiating with Republicans. But this is denial of reality on the same level as Trump pretending covid wasn't real. The Republicans have openly said their whole goal is to 100% block Biden from doing anything.
And if there are Republicans willing to negotiate on voting rights in the Senate, he should be able to produce a list of ten of them who he thinks will sign on to some form of bill to protect voting rights. But there are no such ten Republicans, which everyone knows, at which point he can pivot from saying "we have to work with Republicans on this" right back to "well, no Republicans will support this bill so that makes it a bad bill." And at no point does he mention any substantive problems he has with the bill...it's just that he thinks it's bad because it's partisan, and he's letting Republicans make it partisan by refusing to negotiate on it.
It's completely out of touch with reality, and it's bizarre non-logic that falls apart completely on a moment's inspection, and it's *directly going to harm him* since he's not a Republican and Republicans are going to use their new anti-voter laws to ensure that only Republicans can have political power.
Contrary to what he says, there is nothing radical or "partisan" about HR1. Large majorities of voters support what is in the bill. He's showing that he only cares about what politicians and the Washington establishment think...not what voters think. And he lectures about how this bill would be somehow bad for democracy *while acknowledging the threat to democracy that the bill would address.*
This is why everyone is so pissed off...his position is nonsensical, hypocritical, self-destructive, and delivered with a sanctimonious lecturing tone to boot.
He knows democracy is safe and doesn't have to pretend otherwise
To answer a slightly more serious question than the one you asked—he clearly doesn't give any shits about governing, or protecting democracy; he's an old rich guy who enjoys the fun social club atmosphere of the Senate and, when it comes to governance, only cares about preserving its traditions.
You can yell and scream all you want at him about how his obstructionism is going to mean the end of democracy in America, but the fact is that he just does not give a shit. That's meaningless to him. He does not care.
>You can yell and scream all you want at him about how his obstructionism is going to mean the end of democracy in America,
How many times can democracy be ended in America this year?
It only needs to happen once.
But also, it's a gradual process. It's not an on-off switch, it's a decline that takes place over time, but also composed of discrete events. Such as state legislatures drawing districts such that their party can never be voted out, (which has already happened in multiple states); or congress voting to reject election results because their party didn't win (which Republicans are making preparations to do in 2024, by removing power to certify results from officials who refused to do so in 2020 and reassigning them to state legislatures, i.e. themselves).
Why haven't we seen any attempts by Democrats to convince moderate Republicans to kill the fillibuster and support HR1?
The Republican Party as a whole would have to become more moderate if it wants to win elections.
Given it would be pretty devastating to Trump's MAGA movement you would imagine it would almost certainly help them take back control over their own party. Their own greed should motivate them to do it.
So the Republicans will never agree to mail-in voting. There are good reasons for not trusting mail-in but even if there weren't on the simple fact that it is a huge disadvantage for the GOP means they will never break ranks. In all honesty, HR1 would die in most parts in the courts as the constitution gives the power to state legislators.
The filibuster will likely pass to the GOP next election so there are some Dems(even if they aren't saying it) for that reason aren't willing to do away with it.
The Republican party would need to adjust their targeting that doesn't necessarily mean they need to moderate. They might find that the audience that isn't voting currently might be supportive of more Q type behavior especially if it was sold the right way.
The filibuster lets moderates avoid doing much of what their party wants to do so they will be hesitant about axing it. It can also increase their influence as the other party needs their support more.
They don't control the Republican party because the media doesn't support them. What exactly do you think the media is going to do to them if they devastate the chances of the MAGA movement? Look at how hostile some Democrats are to Manchin. Do you really think the MAGA supporters will be kinder to someone that not only doesn't pass what they want and also supports passing what the other side wants?
First of all, why would they need to convince them to kill the filibuster? It would be much easier to just convince ten of them (well 11 now I guess) to support the law to beat the filibuster. Both are not happening, but the latter would be a lot easier. I guarantee you would convince a lot more of them to support an individual piece of legislation than to torpedo the filibuster.
Not sure if I agree with you that they need to become more moderate (and really, what the heck is moderate these days), so much is contingent on where the election is, if it's a House race vs Senate, etc.
>Why haven't we seen any attempts by Democrats to convince moderate Republicans to kill the fillibuster and support HR1?
1. There are no moderate Republicans.
2. The number of Republicans willing to kill the filibuster when Dems control Congress is 0.
In short: Everyone has better things to do than play pretend.
[This](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-filibuster-commission-voting-rights/2021/05/28/0776b6a6-bf00-11eb-9c90-731aff7d9a0d_story.html) article suggests 8-10 D Senators aren't on board. If that's true, then there aren't enough R's they can convince to push them over the edge. It'd also explain why they aren't pushing Manchin that hard from within the party. If they know he's just the media fall guy, there's no reason to force other members of the party to air their unpopular stances if they want to keep those seats come 2022. It'd just give the public the impression that the party can't function at all.
In the US (and a lot of other democracies I'm familiar with), it seems each generation as a whole is more liberal than the generations preceding it. If you see election results, generally the older you get, the more Republican voters you'll see.
I'm curious if there are any countries right now where the reverse is true, where the younger generation is more conservative than the older?
Israel seems like a good example. The (Jewish) electorate has gone from being mostly secular and largely left-wing in the founding era of the state, to hardline right-wing with a large religious-authoritarian element at present.
* 1+ years of Trump's Campaign we were teased with the idea Trump was to be indicted for crimes like money laundering, rape, sexual abuse etc
* 4 years of a presidency where we were constantly led to believe that Trump was guilty of crimes, that we had all the evidence needed to prove his guilt of these criminal acts but the republicans refused to hold him accountable.
* All these fears of Trump pardoning himself, but he never tried
We are now entering June, about Half a year has gone by where trump could be indicted for any of the plethora of crimes he was accused of, and we were led to believe the proof was already there.
Not a single indictment has even been attempted. The closest thing we have is a NY DA claiming they might indict one of his companies on criminal charges but nothing has been shown that Trump would be indicted.
What is going on, why the delay?
Did they not already have the proof we were led to believe?
Wasn't the obstruction charge supposed to be rock solid? Yet here we are in June with nothing.
Trump could be (for all I know probably is) guilty of everything he's accused of but for some reason he's exactly the kind of person the system as a system protects (rich white guy with good lawyers and a mob of angry harassers at his control, not to mention the informal courtesy extended to former presidents), and so it does.
This is only true if one of two other things are true
* The democrat party will always protect rich white men and all their rhetoric about equality is bunk and they are just manipulating minority voters. As the Democrats have all the power to ensure he goes to trial if in fact they have the proof of guilt
* There really is a "deep state" of non elected people pulling the all the strings and Trump was right about their existence.
Personally, I think both of those things are silly, and in reality, Trump is just innocent (there isn't the evidence to prove guilt) of all the things the media/politicians etc have been screaming there is proof of guilt of. I think all the claims of proof of guilt were hyperbolic nonsense and at best there was some circumstantial evidence
> This is only true if one of two other things are true
Honestly I think (aside the fact that prosecuting ex-presidents is avoided because it looks like revenge on political opponents and appearances in politics matter) that prosecuting Trump is difficult for the exact same reasons that prosecuting mob bosses and rape cases are difficult.
>Did they not already have the proof we were led to believe?
No, they did not. "Trump could be indicted tomorrow!" is a great headline, but it was never true.
There’s lots of inference tying Trump to crimes but insufficient evidence that will actually hold up in criminal court.
For example, Trump never actually asked anyone to storm the Capital building. But one could infer that Trump was pushing for that by continually casting doubt on the election results.
But inference alone isn’t enough to find someone criminally guilty without a reasonable doubt in court.
Maybe in the future there will be evidence but at this moment, it’s all speculation as to what will happen.
You're conflating two different things; evidence and judicial reality. the simple fact is that Trump did everything he's been accused of, we have all the evidence to prove it, and if he weren't a former President, there's a chance he'd be on trial (but he is rich regardless, so that's a maybe). But he is, so nothing will ever happen. Evidence is irrelevant, guilt is irrelevant, Trump was prez, so Trump is safe. Everyone already knew former Presidents don't get charged with things, don't know why anyone thought this time would be different.
So in your mind, he is guilty, the proof is there, but the democrat controlled DOJ will protect him from charges?
Also what is stopping the states? The rape/sexual assault cases etc?
Protect assumes that there's anything to be protected from. No one is going to do anything to him, so there's nothing to be protected from. Again, he's a former President, and he's rich on top of that. There was never any chance he would held criminally liable for anything. Ever. Under any circumstances. Same applies to Biden, or Regen, or Bush, or anyone else. The US (nor any of it's states) does not prosecute Presidents.
What's stopping the states is the same thing that stops the feds; we don't prosecute Presidents. Impeachments are fine because 1. they're basically just big HR hearings and 2. if you see a trial in the Senate, that means the President is already acquitted, and now everything is just stump speeches for campaign ads and soundbites. If the President might lose, he leaves before the trial starts. But actual criminal trials, with impartial jurors subject to the normal jury selection process and no forgone conclusion? Holy fuck no! Can you imagine how much it would take to hold a President, a man who had access to every single secret the US has? Every bit of dirt, every base, every plan and backup plan? Holding celebrities is hard enough, Presidents are not a head ache anyone wants to deal with. And you'd better hope he doesn't die while in custody, because no one who supported the convicted President is going to believe it wasn't an assassination.
And that's just logistics. Consider the optics and outcomes of a President on trial. He gets convicted, his supporters scream Stalinist police state and start rioting and shooting things up. He gets acquitted, his opponents scream cover up, flip shit, and riot (and probably shoot some places up). It'll quite down eventually, but who knows when that is or how bad it will get before then, and even after the immediate fires and shootings die down, people will still be convinced that either your party is engaged in a political with hunt, or that it's at best incompetent and at worst actively complicit. None of this is something any governor or DA wants to deal with, so screw it, Presidents walk free.
In short, the US judicial system is by default heavily skewed to favor the wealthy and well-connected. Presidents, aside from the very good connections they get just by being President, introduce a huge number or political, logistic, and intelligence issues to the mix that makes their criminal prosecution a non-starter at either federal or state level. Civil proceedings are fine and dandy, because no one goes to jail, they just pay some cash and get a little PR boo boo, but criminal is just not something the people in charge want to deal with.
Before you know it's January 2025 and Trumps back in the white house.
Nah, don't see him winning a primary. GOP will push forward a Trump Esq candidate who makes less unforced errors
I don't think Trump will run in 2024, but if he does the primary is his.
Be patient, give it time. There are a lot of institutional/ciltural barriers against charging a politician -- especially a former president of an opposing political party of the current administration -- with a crime. For very good reasons might i add. It's possible that trump is totally guilty of everything and will never be arrested.
Remember -- we literally have audio evidence of trump committing voting fraud in the Raffisberger -- so we certainly know for a fact he is guilty of at least one felony.
Are there any resources containing talking points against major conservative figures? I had a convo with an anti-trump moderate todat who said they were a fan of JBP. I felt like she could be pulled away from him, but i didnt engage because i didnt feel like i could make a clean and decisive argument against Peterson.
Don't look up talking points, people have heard talking points before and they will dismantle you fairly easily because they have been in that argument before. You want to be able to get points against major conservative figures, just watch them confirm your info, search the counter points to the date you will cite and you have a good argument. If you want a good target Ben Shapiro is a pretty easy start.
If you have no arguments against him, why would you wanna pull her away from him?