It's really annoying how people love bringing up the civil rights movement and then claiming it was nothing but protests. If it was nothing but protests, nothing would have changed. The reality is that the leaders of that movement made full use of the tools available to them. They didn't just limit themselves to protests, they also organized and voted where and when they could.
I think that's a strawman. I've repeatedly said that demonstrations are one of several necessary methods of resistance, along with strikes boycotts, and electoral politics. Others who have argued along similar lines have generally taken a similar tack.
Elections are useful when you actually live in a functional democracy
Which, let us be clear: the United States is no such actual thing. Unless you’re a middle class white dude, perhaps.
Like what nation is actually a functioning democracy then?
Why are you interested in grading the United States on a curve when it’s fairly clear that our electoral systems are failing: when the GOP has successfully gerrymandered many of the states under their control, has instituted countless disenfranchising laws and policies directly designed to impact marginalized voters, and now openly is setting the stage to be able to send only GOP electors to the Electoral College for those states they control?
What good does grading the country on a curve work other than to provide a false sense of security that provides a momentary release of the anxiety and pressure that could otherwise be channeled elsewhere?
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
What is edgelording about pointing out that the electoral system has been compromised at mutliple levels across the country in order to diminish the impact of voting against the GOP?
Like, that’s the reality of the situation! That is not a disputable fact; the GOP has commandeered elections systems across the country, from the design of districts, to the laws that say who can vote and how they are allowed to vote, and now the very laws that determine whether or not they even have to acknowledge that vote or can override it via their state legislatures, so that any threat to their power has to fight near electorally-insurmountable institutional blockades.
The myriad parliamentary systems throughout the world where multiple parties create coalitions to actually have the ability to govern I think count as more democratic than this muddled, inert system.
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
What is edgelording about pointing out that the electoral system has been compromised at mutliple levels across the country in order to diminish the impact of voting against the GOP?
Like, that’s the reality of the situation! That is not a disputable fact; the GOP has commandeered elections systems across the country, from the design of districts, to the laws that say who can vote and how they are allowed to vote, and now the very laws that determine whether or not they even have to acknowledge that vote or can override it via their state legislatures, so that any threat to their power has to fight near electorally-insurmountable institutional blockades.
They're just trying to end the argument while being smug because they're not arguing against what you're saying because it's wrong, but because it's you. Same as people trying to gatcha with "what are you personally doing to protest" or "none of you care about the pandemic and are just trying to make my bro Biden look bad". Apparently forum liberals are now gloves off, and they're primary target is you.
As someone who primarily lurks, it's blatantly obvious and comes off as childish.
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
Given the actual realities of the situation, we're functionally not a democracy and some places like Wisconsin just flat aren't one. If the majority has no way to actually exert power, it's not a democracy.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
What is edgelording about pointing out that the electoral system has been compromised at mutliple levels across the country in order to diminish the impact of voting against the GOP?
Like, that’s the reality of the situation! That is not a disputable fact; the GOP has commandeered elections systems across the country, from the design of districts, to the laws that say who can vote and how they are allowed to vote, and now the very laws that determine whether or not they even have to acknowledge that vote or can override it via their state legislatures, so that any threat to their power has to fight near electorally-insurmountable institutional blockades.
I think a productive way to consider it is this
The supreme court is effectively the god-king of the USA, it has complete and total authority to do whatever it wants, interpret laws however it wants, and there is no way for us to influence it at all through any legal means.
Should the supreme court be removed, the senate is a fundamentally undemocratic organization where nothing can be done without the support of a supermajority of state senators
Should the need for a supermajority be removed, the senate remains fundamentally undemocratic because north Dakota gets equal representation to California, and the millions of democratic voters living in red states (and vice versa) do not have their voices heard. In addition, millions of Americans living in Puerto Rico and Washington DC are completely excluded.
Should the senate become representative, elections in the US are fundamentally undemocratic in many states, with state election committees fully captured by corrupt republican interests, and illegal voter suppression and intimidation allowed to thrive
Should elections be made fair in the USA, our system for electing the president is fundamentally biased, and falsely grounds our elections in the demands of a few swing states while vast groups of people have no engagement with the campaign at all
Should elections for president be made a nationwide voting system, then hundreds of thousands of non-white people are imprisoned on trumped up charges nationwide, and many more are pushed into lives of crime (and the subsequent loss of the voting franchise) by being excluded from opportunity and denied community role models (as they have been arrested)
Should ALL of these problems be fixed, we still have a hell of a lot of furious bigotted idiots in the country who will, in a free and fair election, vote for the Klu Klux Klan.
It's really annoying how people love bringing up the civil rights movement and then claiming it was nothing but protests. If it was nothing but protests, nothing would have changed. The reality is that the leaders of that movement made full use of the tools available to them. They didn't just limit themselves to protests, they also organized and voted where and when they could.
I think that's a strawman. I've repeatedly said that demonstrations are one of several necessary methods of resistance, along with strikes boycotts, and electoral politics. Others who have argued along similar lines have generally taken a similar tack.
Elections are useful when you actually live in a functional democracy
Which, let us be clear: the United States is no such actual thing. Unless you’re a middle class white dude, perhaps.
Like what nation is actually a functioning democracy then?
Why are you interested in grading the United States on a curve when it’s fairly clear that our electoral systems are failing: when the GOP has successfully gerrymandered many of the states under their control, has instituted countless disenfranchising laws and policies directly designed to impact marginalized voters, and now openly is setting the stage to be able to send only GOP electors to the Electoral College for those states they control?
What good does grading the country on a curve work other than to provide a false sense of security that provides a momentary release of the anxiety and pressure that could otherwise be channeled elsewhere?
Look at it from the other perspective. There's plenty of countries (that may have their issues), but the relevant importance of one person's vote is still meaningful. Even some with FPTP.
Less grading on a curve, but how far the US is behind.
Just as concerning, there are other countries (looking at you Aus/UK) that are picking up the same playbook.
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
What is edgelording about pointing out that the electoral system has been compromised at mutliple levels across the country in order to diminish the impact of voting against the GOP?
Like, that’s the reality of the situation! That is not a disputable fact; the GOP has commandeered elections systems across the country, from the design of districts, to the laws that say who can vote and how they are allowed to vote, and now the very laws that determine whether or not they even have to acknowledge that vote or can override it via their state legislatures, so that any threat to their power has to fight near electorally-insurmountable institutional blockades.
I think a productive way to consider it is this
(snip)
tl;dr, we're literally fucked "six ways from Sunday."
thank you, that was very productive.
*rocks back and forth*
There is no such thing as a pure democracy, so why worry about that?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+2
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
What is edgelording about pointing out that the electoral system has been compromised at mutliple levels across the country in order to diminish the impact of voting against the GOP?
Like, that’s the reality of the situation! That is not a disputable fact; the GOP has commandeered elections systems across the country, from the design of districts, to the laws that say who can vote and how they are allowed to vote, and now the very laws that determine whether or not they even have to acknowledge that vote or can override it via their state legislatures, so that any threat to their power has to fight near electorally-insurmountable institutional blockades.
I think a productive way to consider it is this
(snip)
tl;dr, we're literally fucked "six ways from Sunday."
thank you, that was very productive.
*rocks back and forth*
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
What is edgelording about pointing out that the electoral system has been compromised at mutliple levels across the country in order to diminish the impact of voting against the GOP?
Like, that’s the reality of the situation! That is not a disputable fact; the GOP has commandeered elections systems across the country, from the design of districts, to the laws that say who can vote and how they are allowed to vote, and now the very laws that determine whether or not they even have to acknowledge that vote or can override it via their state legislatures, so that any threat to their power has to fight near electorally-insurmountable institutional blockades.
I think a productive way to consider it is this
(snip)
tl;dr, we're literally fucked "six ways from Sunday."
thank you, that was very productive.
*rocks back and forth*
if a government being fundamentally undemocratic meant that it was invincible then the united states would not exist in the first place.
So found via this comment from Jamelle Bouie (NYT columnist), apparently conservatives are getting huffy that the current gen of Yale Law is seeing their progressive students basically going “fuck this” and deciding to ostracize their conservative cohort (given, you know, said cohort backs the travesties we’re seeing)
it is a violation of the rights of conservative law students for their classmates not to like them
You can click through to get to the original tweet and the Free Beacon’s whining that these students are being so unfair and terrible
Also kind of refreshing to see Yale Students go “guys maybe the document created by a bunch of slave owning white land barons isn’t sufficient to preserve a diverse and equitable pluralistic society!”
(The beacon is, of course, in a tizzy about that one too)
That violin is way to large for the amount of pity I feel for those poor souls right now.
Am I the only one who looked at that picture, and saw that it's playing it like a cello, so the joke doesn't work quite right?
I'm a fucking nerd.
Not only that, the bow is below the bridge and therefore it won't even make any decent sound!
There is no such thing as a pure democracy, so why worry about that?
Because it's a gradient, not a binary. The US is highly undemocratic. There are many states that are more democratic than the US. Even if their weren't, it would be easy to imagine ways to make the US government more democratic. The lack of democracy in the US, relative either to the ideal of democracy or some established democracies today, is lamentable for people who want democracy.
Where one draws the line between "democracy" and "not democracy" is at best a discussion in itself and at worst arbitrary. But I agree with the argument that the level of popular control over the government is minimal enough to say that the US is not one.
There is no such thing as a pure democracy, so why worry about that?
Because it's a gradient, not a binary. The US is highly undemocratic. There are many states that are more democratic than the US. Even if their weren't, it would be easy to imagine ways to make the US government more democratic. The lack of democracy in the US, relative either to the ideal of democracy or some established democracies today, is lamentable for people who want democracy.
Where one draws the line between "democracy" and "not democracy" is at best a discussion in itself and at worst arbitrary. But I agree with the argument that the level of popular control over the government is minimal enough to say that the US is not one.
There are many democratic features of the US government, it's just the case that the entirety of it does not function as one and there are key sections which are enormously undemocratic. This odd patchwork (where I am endlessly voting in multiple elections each year, influencing in some small way utterly critical policies, yet also completely denied a voice where it counts) is what makes our system so problematic.
For example, a massive problem with our system is that we have FAR too many elections. Too many votes for anyone to care, which actually makes the system less democratic because it places more control in the hands of those who are idle (old retired people)
There is no such thing as a pure democracy, so why worry about that?
Because it's a gradient, not a binary. The US is highly undemocratic. There are many states that are more democratic than the US. Even if their weren't, it would be easy to imagine ways to make the US government more democratic. The lack of democracy in the US, relative either to the ideal of democracy or some established democracies today, is lamentable for people who want democracy.
Where one draws the line between "democracy" and "not democracy" is at best a discussion in itself and at worst arbitrary. But I agree with the argument that the level of popular control over the government is minimal enough to say that the US is not one.
There are many democratic features of the US government, it's just the case that the entirety of it does not function as one and there are key sections which are enormously undemocratic. This odd patchwork (where I am endlessly voting in multiple elections each year, influencing in some small way utterly critical policies, yet also completely denied a voice where it counts) is what makes our system so problematic.
For example, a massive problem with our system is that we have FAR too many elections. Too many votes for anyone to care, which actually makes the system less democratic because it places more control in the hands of those who are idle (old retired people)
Lots of elections is a byproduct of the United States being a set of united States, and you can't really get around that without consolidating power more
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There is no such thing as a pure democracy, so why worry about that?
Because it's a gradient, not a binary. The US is highly undemocratic. There are many states that are more democratic than the US. Even if their weren't, it would be easy to imagine ways to make the US government more democratic. The lack of democracy in the US, relative either to the ideal of democracy or some established democracies today, is lamentable for people who want democracy.
Where one draws the line between "democracy" and "not democracy" is at best a discussion in itself and at worst arbitrary. But I agree with the argument that the level of popular control over the government is minimal enough to say that the US is not one.
There are many democratic features of the US government, it's just the case that the entirety of it does not function as one and there are key sections which are enormously undemocratic. This odd patchwork (where I am endlessly voting in multiple elections each year, influencing in some small way utterly critical policies, yet also completely denied a voice where it counts) is what makes our system so problematic.
For example, a massive problem with our system is that we have FAR too many elections. Too many votes for anyone to care, which actually makes the system less democratic because it places more control in the hands of those who are idle (old retired people)
Lots of elections is a byproduct of the United States being a set of united States, and you can't really get around that without consolidating power more
Some positions that are elected shouldn't be.
As many elections as possible should be at the same time rather than separate times.
The act of voting should be as fast, simple and painless as possible for as many people as possible.
So found via this comment from Jamelle Bouie (NYT columnist), apparently conservatives are getting huffy that the current gen of Yale Law is seeing their progressive students basically going “fuck this” and deciding to ostracize their conservative cohort (given, you know, said cohort backs the travesties we’re seeing)
it is a violation of the rights of conservative law students for their classmates not to like them
You can click through to get to the original tweet and the Free Beacon’s whining that these students are being so unfair and terrible
Also kind of refreshing to see Yale Students go “guys maybe the document created by a bunch of slave owning white land barons isn’t sufficient to preserve a diverse and equitable pluralistic society!”
(The beacon is, of course, in a tizzy about that one too)
That violin is way to large for the amount of pity I feel for those poor souls right now.
Am I the only one who looked at that picture, and saw that it's playing it like a cello, so the joke doesn't work quite right?
I'm a fucking nerd.
Yes. Because a cello is just a large violin. And that is probably a violin (well resized) anyway.
The actual way you can tell a violin versus a cello(assuming of course that they were scaled to the same overall size) is that the string portion on a violin is proportionally larger in comparison to the body. Because larger/smaller instruments need to have differing proportions so you can like... actually play them(neck angles are also often different for similar, structural reasons iirc) but not for any instrumental purposes. Cellos also often have stands and tend to be a bit thicker. But this doesn't make it not a violin. It is, after all, a violoncello; literally, a "little big viola" whereas a violin is a "little viola".
edit: if such an instrument did exist it would probably be given a name that meant "the littlest viola"
So found via this comment from Jamelle Bouie (NYT columnist), apparently conservatives are getting huffy that the current gen of Yale Law is seeing their progressive students basically going “fuck this” and deciding to ostracize their conservative cohort (given, you know, said cohort backs the travesties we’re seeing)
it is a violation of the rights of conservative law students for their classmates not to like them
You can click through to get to the original tweet and the Free Beacon’s whining that these students are being so unfair and terrible
Also kind of refreshing to see Yale Students go “guys maybe the document created by a bunch of slave owning white land barons isn’t sufficient to preserve a diverse and equitable pluralistic society!”
(The beacon is, of course, in a tizzy about that one too)
That violin is way to large for the amount of pity I feel for those poor souls right now.
Am I the only one who looked at that picture, and saw that it's playing it like a cello, so the joke doesn't work quite right?
I'm a fucking nerd.
Yes. Because a cello is just a large violin. And that is probably a violin (well resized) anyway.
The actual way you can tell a violin versus a cello(assuming of course that they were scaled to the same overall size) is that the string portion on a violin is proportionally larger in comparison to the body. Because larger/smaller instruments need to have differing proportions so you can like... actually play them(neck angles are also often different for similar, structural reasons iirc) but not for any instrumental purposes. Cellos also often have stands and tend to be a bit thicker. But this doesn't make it not a violin. It is, after all, a violoncello; literally, a "little big viola" whereas a violin is a "little viola".
edit: if such an instrument did exist it would probably be given a name that meant "the littlest viola"
You and @chrisnl show that I am not alone in being a big fucking nerd.
So found via this comment from Jamelle Bouie (NYT columnist), apparently conservatives are getting huffy that the current gen of Yale Law is seeing their progressive students basically going “fuck this” and deciding to ostracize their conservative cohort (given, you know, said cohort backs the travesties we’re seeing)
it is a violation of the rights of conservative law students for their classmates not to like them
You can click through to get to the original tweet and the Free Beacon’s whining that these students are being so unfair and terrible
Also kind of refreshing to see Yale Students go “guys maybe the document created by a bunch of slave owning white land barons isn’t sufficient to preserve a diverse and equitable pluralistic society!”
(The beacon is, of course, in a tizzy about that one too)
That violin is way to large for the amount of pity I feel for those poor souls right now.
Am I the only one who looked at that picture, and saw that it's playing it like a cello, so the joke doesn't work quite right?
I'm a fucking nerd.
Yes. Because a cello is just a large violin. And that is probably a violin (well resized) anyway.
The actual way you can tell a violin versus a cello(assuming of course that they were scaled to the same overall size) is that the string portion on a violin is proportionally larger in comparison to the body. Because larger/smaller instruments need to have differing proportions so you can like... actually play them(neck angles are also often different for similar, structural reasons iirc) but not for any instrumental purposes. Cellos also often have stands and tend to be a bit thicker. But this doesn't make it not a violin. It is, after all, a violoncello; literally, a "little big viola" whereas a violin is a "little viola".
edit: if such an instrument did exist it would probably be given a name that meant "the littlest viola"
You and @chrisnl show that I am not alone in being a big fucking nerd.
I am home.
Now if you had a really large violin, like really really honkin’ huge, well, that’d be a Geegon
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
So found via this comment from Jamelle Bouie (NYT columnist), apparently conservatives are getting huffy that the current gen of Yale Law is seeing their progressive students basically going “fuck this” and deciding to ostracize their conservative cohort (given, you know, said cohort backs the travesties we’re seeing)
it is a violation of the rights of conservative law students for their classmates not to like them
You can click through to get to the original tweet and the Free Beacon’s whining that these students are being so unfair and terrible
Also kind of refreshing to see Yale Students go “guys maybe the document created by a bunch of slave owning white land barons isn’t sufficient to preserve a diverse and equitable pluralistic society!”
(The beacon is, of course, in a tizzy about that one too)
That violin is way to large for the amount of pity I feel for those poor souls right now.
Am I the only one who looked at that picture, and saw that it's playing it like a cello, so the joke doesn't work quite right?
I'm a fucking nerd.
Yes. Because a cello is just a large violin. And that is probably a violin (well resized) anyway.
The actual way you can tell a violin versus a cello(assuming of course that they were scaled to the same overall size) is that the string portion on a violin is proportionally larger in comparison to the body. Because larger/smaller instruments need to have differing proportions so you can like... actually play them(neck angles are also often different for similar, structural reasons iirc) but not for any instrumental purposes. Cellos also often have stands and tend to be a bit thicker. But this doesn't make it not a violin. It is, after all, a violoncello; literally, a "little big viola" whereas a violin is a "little viola".
edit: if such an instrument did exist it would probably be given a name that meant "the littlest viola"
Violins or cellos?
smdh at this viola erasure
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
Considering the nominal topic of this thread is the removal of rights from roughly half the population by six unelected individuals that were given lifetime appointments by a political party that won the popular vote in the Presidential election only once in the last 30 years, I'm not sure I would dismiss 'The US isn't a democracy' as internet edgelording. There are serious, fundamental, issues with American democracy that have mostly been papered over with norms and traditions, and no small bit of luck.
And here's a link to the Democracy Index wiki page. The USA is 26th on the list.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Yup. Because regardless of the term, it brings it's own problems.
Long terms (~20+), and some real shitheels will get elected. The ability of the electorate to not fuck up on a regular, if not consistent basis has been tested and been found wanting.
Short terms (~6 or less), and if you allow for reelect you're going to have justices playing to the crowds (like goosing outcomes they think are votewinners). If you don't allow reelect, you lose some level of stewardship (I just figured out the phones, and now I'm packing up my stuff).
Something in between, and you're going to see the same shit we see in the legislature. Justices favouring outcomes that will further their post-judicial career. "After ten years on the bench, and multiple rulings against various alcohol restrictions, Justice Kavanaugh has joined the board of Anheuser-Busch".
I'm not sure the current system in the US is much better, given the outcome, but it IS better than direct election.
I do like the two proposed changes I've seen, both "each justice must come from a different circuit", which gives some limited diversity of perspective (people who get to SCOTUS are likely people of privilege, at least for a period of time before tgat, even if not at the beginning of their lives), and that we rotate out the longest tenured SCOTUS every two years (so none of this bullshit of Trump getting three in four years shit).
Only issue with the latter is you need a safeguard to prevent Senatorial fuckery.
And as everything would require Constitutional change, so it's all a non-starter for the next couple generations.
MorganV on
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
Considering the nominal topic of this thread is the removal of rights from roughly half the population by six unelected individuals that were given lifetime appointments by a political party that won the popular vote in the Presidential election only once in the last 30 years, I'm not sure I would dismiss 'The US isn't a democracy' as internet edgelording. There are serious, fundamental, issues with American democracy that have mostly been papered over with norms and traditions, and no small bit of luck.
And here's a link to the Democracy Index wiki page. The USA is 26th on the list.
...out of 167.
On the scale that goes Authoritarian Regime - Hybrid Regime - Flawed Democracy - Full Democracy, the U.S.A. is placed very near the threshold at the top of the Flawed Democracy category.
This doesn't really support Lanz's stance that the United States is not a functional democracy and her implication that elections here are not useful.
+3
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
Considering the nominal topic of this thread is the removal of rights from roughly half the population by six unelected individuals that were given lifetime appointments by a political party that won the popular vote in the Presidential election only once in the last 30 years, I'm not sure I would dismiss 'The US isn't a democracy' as internet edgelording. There are serious, fundamental, issues with American democracy that have mostly been papered over with norms and traditions, and no small bit of luck.
And here's a link to the Democracy Index wiki page. The USA is 26th on the list.
...out of 167.
On the scale that goes Authoritarian Regime - Hybrid Regime - Flawed Democracy - Full Democracy, the U.S.A. is placed very near the threshold at the top of the Flawed Democracy category.
This doesn't really support Lanz's stance that the United States is not a functional democracy and her implication that elections here are not useful.
As a blanket statement it's iffy, but in relationship to Roe v Wade I don't think that you can say with a straight face that this is the result of a functioning democracy. Trump lost the popular vote, he got to nominate three justices that were confirmed by the not very representative Senate, and those three plus the other two (or three, Roberts may or may not join, but practically there's no difference between 5-4 and 6-3) strike down a decision that has the support of something around 60% of the population. That's not even getting into GWB not winning the popular vote in 2000, which would have made it unlikely that Roberts or Alito would be on the bench.
That said, voting is, unfortunately, the only realistic solution to the situation. That and the Democrats getting their heads out of their asses when it comes to the current situation and the need for their members, especially the Senators, to start prioritizing the needs of the party. Protest outside the houses of the Justices, make them miserable whenever they go out for dinner, hell, even give the old general strike a try, but power in the United States comes from winning elections, and that's the only way to undo this shitshow.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Unless the GOP stops being super shitty. It far more realistic to focus on keeping he GOP from gaining the Senate or the House, kill the filibuster, expand and fill the court and then codify things into federal law.
The filibuster has been killed 0 times in US history
Social progress has been coerced through mass organization and civil unrest more than 0 times in US history
I'm not sure why you're asserting that the method with the worse track record is the more realistic avenue
I mean don't get me wrong, I'll take the W any way we can get it and we are not obligated to employ only one kind of tactic
But we should probably prioritize the ones that have been proven to work
Or, alternatively: the democrats are a lot more likely to kill the filibuster and make some good things happen if they are sufficiently intimidated into doing so by a large social movement
The filibuster was killed literally three months ago to raise the debt ceiling.
McConnel famously killed the filibuster on appointments so they could ram through judges during Trump.
Unless the GOP stops being super shitty. It far more realistic to focus on keeping he GOP from gaining the Senate or the House, kill the filibuster, expand and fill the court and then codify things into federal law.
The filibuster has been killed 0 times in US history
Social progress has been coerced through mass organization and civil unrest more than 0 times in US history
I'm not sure why you're asserting that the method with the worse track record is the more realistic avenue
I mean don't get me wrong, I'll take the W any way we can get it and we are not obligated to employ only one kind of tactic
But we should probably prioritize the ones that have been proven to work
Or, alternatively: the democrats are a lot more likely to kill the filibuster and make some good things happen if they are sufficiently intimidated into doing so by a large social movement
The filibuster was killed literally three months ago to raise the debt ceiling.
McConnel famously killed the filibuster on appointments so they could ram through judges during Trump.
Justices. Reid had already removed the filibuster for judges (and Senate confirmed administration officials), because McConnell was an obstructionist dickbag.
It's all McConnell's fault, but the decision to remove the filibuster was Reid's. Because Reid wanted a quasi-functional government, and McConnell wants a Republican run government or no government.
Unless the GOP stops being super shitty. It far more realistic to focus on keeping he GOP from gaining the Senate or the House, kill the filibuster, expand and fill the court and then codify things into federal law.
The filibuster has been killed 0 times in US history
Social progress has been coerced through mass organization and civil unrest more than 0 times in US history
I'm not sure why you're asserting that the method with the worse track record is the more realistic avenue
I mean don't get me wrong, I'll take the W any way we can get it and we are not obligated to employ only one kind of tactic
But we should probably prioritize the ones that have been proven to work
Or, alternatively: the democrats are a lot more likely to kill the filibuster and make some good things happen if they are sufficiently intimidated into doing so by a large social movement
The filibuster was killed literally three months ago to raise the debt ceiling.
McConnel famously killed the filibuster on appointments so they could ram through judges during Trump.
Justices. Reid had already removed the filibuster for judges (and Senate confirmed administration officials), because McConnell was an obstructionist dickbag.
It's all McConnell's fault, but the decision to remove the filibuster was Reid's. Because Reid wanted a quasi-functional government, and McConnell wants a Republican run government or no government.
There's such a ridiculous degree of difference between judges and supreme court justices that its barely even relevant.
A judge, even if appointed for life, faces review by another person. That person COULD (they aren't) be democratically elected and accountable to the will of the electorate.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+12
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
The US was founded on a bunch of small d democratic compromises to get a bunch of racist slave-owning assholes on board
This endpoint was inevitable, all it took was getting somebody at one of the chokepoints intentionally placed who would only ever hammer the Betray button, with zero respect for norms, democracy, basic human decency, or a functioning republic
Voting is important, still, to try and keep things from getting worse, but I’m comfortable saying it’s going to take other actions to actually solve the problem (if it is, indeed, solvable at this point)
Note that I’m not saying to go out and assassinate a Justice; what I’m advocating for here is social and economic disruption to the point where the ruling class can’t ignore it anymore
If there was one issue that could bring us to that point, it’s this decision, I think; it’s incredibly unpopular and viscerally unjust
I just don’t know how much people are going to let apathy and outrage burnout take hold
It's more pointing out that "The US isn't a democracy" is lazy edgelording of the political variety.
What is edgelording about pointing out that the electoral system has been compromised at mutliple levels across the country in order to diminish the impact of voting against the GOP?
Like, that’s the reality of the situation! That is not a disputable fact; the GOP has commandeered elections systems across the country, from the design of districts, to the laws that say who can vote and how they are allowed to vote, and now the very laws that determine whether or not they even have to acknowledge that vote or can override it via their state legislatures, so that any threat to their power has to fight near electorally-insurmountable institutional blockades.
I think a productive way to consider it is this
(snip)
tl;dr, we're literally fucked "six ways from Sunday."
thank you, that was very productive.
*rocks back and forth*
if a government being fundamentally undemocratic meant that it was invincible then the united states would not exist in the first place.
I mean, if the British had newsmax and facebook we'd still be drinking tea and misnaming cookies
what I’m advocating for here is social and economic disruption to the point where the ruling class can’t ignore it anymore
It's a nice thought, but when a good portion of half the electorate are living month to month, if not week to week, convincing themselves to put their financial security (which quickly becomes food/shelter/healthcare security) on the line, is a big ask.
Especially when the other half of the electorate are happily cheering on their own subjugation, as long as they're not at the very bottom of the pile.
I think it's one of the philosophies of Republicanism that's at threat, because the whackos rule the party. Give people just enough that they've got something to lose, you'll prevent the uprising. Hunger, but not starvation, money, but not wealth, bankruptcy but not destitution.
what I’m advocating for here is social and economic disruption to the point where the ruling class can’t ignore it anymore
Especially when the other half of the electorate are happily cheering on their own subjugation, as long as they're not at the very bottom of the pile.
That’s the real problem. If it was the top 1% of the elite banning abortion against the people’s will, a popular uprising could prevent it. But banning abortion is almost universally popular among conservative voters of all classes, and a lot of others aren’t terribly bothered - abortion is a “nice to have” but they don’t see it as a thing they are likely to need (or likely to need again) because people are bad at planning.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
+1
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I would honestly be fine with just replacing the one who has served the longest on a yearly basis.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I like the U.S. political system and consider it a democratic republic. I also think there are lots of areas ripe for improvement. Those sentiments are not incompatible.
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Posts
Why are you interested in grading the United States on a curve when it’s fairly clear that our electoral systems are failing: when the GOP has successfully gerrymandered many of the states under their control, has instituted countless disenfranchising laws and policies directly designed to impact marginalized voters, and now openly is setting the stage to be able to send only GOP electors to the Electoral College for those states they control?
What good does grading the country on a curve work other than to provide a false sense of security that provides a momentary release of the anxiety and pressure that could otherwise be channeled elsewhere?
Whataboutism everyone else eh?
What is edgelording about pointing out that the electoral system has been compromised at mutliple levels across the country in order to diminish the impact of voting against the GOP?
Like, that’s the reality of the situation! That is not a disputable fact; the GOP has commandeered elections systems across the country, from the design of districts, to the laws that say who can vote and how they are allowed to vote, and now the very laws that determine whether or not they even have to acknowledge that vote or can override it via their state legislatures, so that any threat to their power has to fight near electorally-insurmountable institutional blockades.
They're just trying to end the argument while being smug because they're not arguing against what you're saying because it's wrong, but because it's you. Same as people trying to gatcha with "what are you personally doing to protest" or "none of you care about the pandemic and are just trying to make my bro Biden look bad". Apparently forum liberals are now gloves off, and they're primary target is you.
As someone who primarily lurks, it's blatantly obvious and comes off as childish.
Given the actual realities of the situation, we're functionally not a democracy and some places like Wisconsin just flat aren't one. If the majority has no way to actually exert power, it's not a democracy.
I think a productive way to consider it is this
The supreme court is effectively the god-king of the USA, it has complete and total authority to do whatever it wants, interpret laws however it wants, and there is no way for us to influence it at all through any legal means.
Should the supreme court be removed, the senate is a fundamentally undemocratic organization where nothing can be done without the support of a supermajority of state senators
Should the need for a supermajority be removed, the senate remains fundamentally undemocratic because north Dakota gets equal representation to California, and the millions of democratic voters living in red states (and vice versa) do not have their voices heard. In addition, millions of Americans living in Puerto Rico and Washington DC are completely excluded.
Should the senate become representative, elections in the US are fundamentally undemocratic in many states, with state election committees fully captured by corrupt republican interests, and illegal voter suppression and intimidation allowed to thrive
Should elections be made fair in the USA, our system for electing the president is fundamentally biased, and falsely grounds our elections in the demands of a few swing states while vast groups of people have no engagement with the campaign at all
Should elections for president be made a nationwide voting system, then hundreds of thousands of non-white people are imprisoned on trumped up charges nationwide, and many more are pushed into lives of crime (and the subsequent loss of the voting franchise) by being excluded from opportunity and denied community role models (as they have been arrested)
Should ALL of these problems be fixed, we still have a hell of a lot of furious bigotted idiots in the country who will, in a free and fair election, vote for the Klu Klux Klan.
Look at it from the other perspective. There's plenty of countries (that may have their issues), but the relevant importance of one person's vote is still meaningful. Even some with FPTP.
Less grading on a curve, but how far the US is behind.
Just as concerning, there are other countries (looking at you Aus/UK) that are picking up the same playbook.
tl;dr, we're literally fucked "six ways from Sunday."
thank you, that was very productive.
*rocks back and forth*
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There will always be pitchforks, et al
if a government being fundamentally undemocratic meant that it was invincible then the united states would not exist in the first place.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Democracy is necessarily dysfunctional, but it allows for course correction. It's always under threat as it threatens the powerful.
Not only that, the bow is below the bridge and therefore it won't even make any decent sound!
Where one draws the line between "democracy" and "not democracy" is at best a discussion in itself and at worst arbitrary. But I agree with the argument that the level of popular control over the government is minimal enough to say that the US is not one.
There are many democratic features of the US government, it's just the case that the entirety of it does not function as one and there are key sections which are enormously undemocratic. This odd patchwork (where I am endlessly voting in multiple elections each year, influencing in some small way utterly critical policies, yet also completely denied a voice where it counts) is what makes our system so problematic.
For example, a massive problem with our system is that we have FAR too many elections. Too many votes for anyone to care, which actually makes the system less democratic because it places more control in the hands of those who are idle (old retired people)
Lots of elections is a byproduct of the United States being a set of united States, and you can't really get around that without consolidating power more
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Some positions that are elected shouldn't be.
As many elections as possible should be at the same time rather than separate times.
The act of voting should be as fast, simple and painless as possible for as many people as possible.
Yes. Because a cello is just a large violin. And that is probably a violin (well resized) anyway.
The actual way you can tell a violin versus a cello(assuming of course that they were scaled to the same overall size) is that the string portion on a violin is proportionally larger in comparison to the body. Because larger/smaller instruments need to have differing proportions so you can like... actually play them(neck angles are also often different for similar, structural reasons iirc) but not for any instrumental purposes. Cellos also often have stands and tend to be a bit thicker. But this doesn't make it not a violin. It is, after all, a violoncello; literally, a "little big viola" whereas a violin is a "little viola".
edit: if such an instrument did exist it would probably be given a name that meant "the littlest viola"
You and @chrisnl show that I am not alone in being a big fucking nerd.
I am home.
Now if you had a really large violin, like really really honkin’ huge, well, that’d be a Geegon
I wouldn’t want to see the Supreme Court elected though. In fact, I think electing judges at any level is the wrong set up.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Violins or cellos?
smdh at this viola erasure
Considering the nominal topic of this thread is the removal of rights from roughly half the population by six unelected individuals that were given lifetime appointments by a political party that won the popular vote in the Presidential election only once in the last 30 years, I'm not sure I would dismiss 'The US isn't a democracy' as internet edgelording. There are serious, fundamental, issues with American democracy that have mostly been papered over with norms and traditions, and no small bit of luck.
And here's a link to the Democracy Index wiki page. The USA is 26th on the list.
Yup. Because regardless of the term, it brings it's own problems.
Long terms (~20+), and some real shitheels will get elected. The ability of the electorate to not fuck up on a regular, if not consistent basis has been tested and been found wanting.
Short terms (~6 or less), and if you allow for reelect you're going to have justices playing to the crowds (like goosing outcomes they think are votewinners). If you don't allow reelect, you lose some level of stewardship (I just figured out the phones, and now I'm packing up my stuff).
Something in between, and you're going to see the same shit we see in the legislature. Justices favouring outcomes that will further their post-judicial career. "After ten years on the bench, and multiple rulings against various alcohol restrictions, Justice Kavanaugh has joined the board of Anheuser-Busch".
I'm not sure the current system in the US is much better, given the outcome, but it IS better than direct election.
I do like the two proposed changes I've seen, both "each justice must come from a different circuit", which gives some limited diversity of perspective (people who get to SCOTUS are likely people of privilege, at least for a period of time before tgat, even if not at the beginning of their lives), and that we rotate out the longest tenured SCOTUS every two years (so none of this bullshit of Trump getting three in four years shit).
Only issue with the latter is you need a safeguard to prevent Senatorial fuckery.
And as everything would require Constitutional change, so it's all a non-starter for the next couple generations.
...out of 167.
On the scale that goes Authoritarian Regime - Hybrid Regime - Flawed Democracy - Full Democracy, the U.S.A. is placed very near the threshold at the top of the Flawed Democracy category.
This doesn't really support Lanz's stance that the United States is not a functional democracy and her implication that elections here are not useful.
As a blanket statement it's iffy, but in relationship to Roe v Wade I don't think that you can say with a straight face that this is the result of a functioning democracy. Trump lost the popular vote, he got to nominate three justices that were confirmed by the not very representative Senate, and those three plus the other two (or three, Roberts may or may not join, but practically there's no difference between 5-4 and 6-3) strike down a decision that has the support of something around 60% of the population. That's not even getting into GWB not winning the popular vote in 2000, which would have made it unlikely that Roberts or Alito would be on the bench.
That said, voting is, unfortunately, the only realistic solution to the situation. That and the Democrats getting their heads out of their asses when it comes to the current situation and the need for their members, especially the Senators, to start prioritizing the needs of the party. Protest outside the houses of the Justices, make them miserable whenever they go out for dinner, hell, even give the old general strike a try, but power in the United States comes from winning elections, and that's the only way to undo this shitshow.
McConnel famously killed the filibuster on appointments so they could ram through judges during Trump.
Justices. Reid had already removed the filibuster for judges (and Senate confirmed administration officials), because McConnell was an obstructionist dickbag.
It's all McConnell's fault, but the decision to remove the filibuster was Reid's. Because Reid wanted a quasi-functional government, and McConnell wants a Republican run government or no government.
There's such a ridiculous degree of difference between judges and supreme court justices that its barely even relevant.
A judge, even if appointed for life, faces review by another person. That person COULD (they aren't) be democratically elected and accountable to the will of the electorate.
Electing judges is wrong but so are lifetime appointments which is really what makes SCOTUS undemocratic. Theoretically they should be appointed by a democratically elected executive and confirmed by a democratically elected Senate. But even under the best of circumstances, as the nation changes you end up with justices that no longer represent the desires of the electorate.
This endpoint was inevitable, all it took was getting somebody at one of the chokepoints intentionally placed who would only ever hammer the Betray button, with zero respect for norms, democracy, basic human decency, or a functioning republic
Voting is important, still, to try and keep things from getting worse, but I’m comfortable saying it’s going to take other actions to actually solve the problem (if it is, indeed, solvable at this point)
Note that I’m not saying to go out and assassinate a Justice; what I’m advocating for here is social and economic disruption to the point where the ruling class can’t ignore it anymore
If there was one issue that could bring us to that point, it’s this decision, I think; it’s incredibly unpopular and viscerally unjust
I just don’t know how much people are going to let apathy and outrage burnout take hold
It feels like we’ve been fighting this forever
I mean, if the British had newsmax and facebook we'd still be drinking tea and misnaming cookies
It's a nice thought, but when a good portion of half the electorate are living month to month, if not week to week, convincing themselves to put their financial security (which quickly becomes food/shelter/healthcare security) on the line, is a big ask.
Especially when the other half of the electorate are happily cheering on their own subjugation, as long as they're not at the very bottom of the pile.
I think it's one of the philosophies of Republicanism that's at threat, because the whackos rule the party. Give people just enough that they've got something to lose, you'll prevent the uprising. Hunger, but not starvation, money, but not wealth, bankruptcy but not destitution.
That’s the real problem. If it was the top 1% of the elite banning abortion against the people’s will, a popular uprising could prevent it. But banning abortion is almost universally popular among conservative voters of all classes, and a lot of others aren’t terribly bothered - abortion is a “nice to have” but they don’t see it as a thing they are likely to need (or likely to need again) because people are bad at planning.
Justices should not be lifetime appointments. Put them on a 6 year schedule, with 3 replaced every 2 years.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
This seems like it misses the bigger issue. Having constitutional law flip 180 every presidential term would be very bad for stability.