[Terez]

I think we should abolish parties altogether.

[McLovin]

Gorefest, on 21 January 2015 - 09:47 AM, said:

Methinks the USA needs some more political parties.This two-horse race thing is so '70-ies. Even the UK has coalition governments these days.

That's definitely true. I have begun to support Green and Libertarian candidates for local office, not because I agree with their platforms, but because we need more alternatives, and it would change the dynamic of politics.

[McLovin]

Terez, on 21 January 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

I think we should abolish parties altogether.

The real problem is campaign finance. Unfortunately, the people in a position to do something about it are the ones least motivated to do anything about it. Therefore, the solution is not fewer parties, but more. Weaken the corruption by spreading it thinner.

[Terez]

McLovin, on 21 January 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

Terez, on 21 January 2015 - 11:26 AM, said:

I think we should abolish parties altogether.

The real problem is campaign finance.

That is the response I thought about making to your previous post.

McLovin, on 21 January 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:

Unfortunately, the people in a position to do something about it are the ones least motivated to do anything about it. Therefore, the solution is not fewer parties, but more. Weaken the corruption by spreading it thinner.

My idea of fewer parties is something like more parties. I actually stole it from Robert Jordan's fictional utopia, the "vast sea of ajah" (parties), each dedicated to a single purpose, often temporary.

I think political parties are inherently absurd because they try to fit the complexity of human opinion into 2 or maybe as many as a dozen categories (usually quite a bit less). Either you go with a party that has some positions you disagree with, or you adopt the positions of the party. The fact that the latter scenario is actually rather common is what bothers me the most about partisan politics.

Change, whatever form it takes, won't come about any time soon without coordinated congressional turnover. That takes a lot of effort and motivation. I think it's possible, but change requires a catalyst, in which case the best ideas for change had better already be "lying around", as Milton Friedman said.

[cerveza_fiesta]

RE the warren thing

I think it would be tremendously entertaining to see her in the candidates' debates where she puts on her sternface and starts dressing down her opponents like teacher would a schoolboy...a la Dr. Oz hearing.

She just has that "fuck that....that's wrong and I'm going to say something about it" attitude that a lot of people can get behind. I think because it seems to be completely morally motivated and genuine rather than the disingenuous motivations you expect from most politician, e.g. "fuck that.....that's wrong and I'm going to say something about it because it really grabs those headlines and makes me look good in the next election when I act super outraged by everything my opponent does"

EDIT

Disappointing to hear there isn't a good non-partisan source of election coverage that goes deeper than the surface. The way media is set up in the US makes it so difficult to avoid falling into either the conservative or liberal echo chambers. They are both fathomless and really sneak up on you unless you actively try not to fall in.

In canada we have CBC which (despite peoples' claims) is fairly neutral. They tend to bash whoever is in power, regardless of political stripe. Does NPR maybe have a decent balanced program? I prefer radio to TV for that type of thing anyway. I listened to Diane Rehm awhile back and found it to be only slightly biased liberal and very professional. Is that still any good?

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 21 January 2015 - 04:23 PM

[Terez]

If you prefer radio, NPR is probably good but they are very liberal. One of our oldest staunchly liberal news organizations, actually. And I can't recommend a specific program.

[Terez]

I feel like I should expand a bit on the nature of the US media and how it has evolved over the last 30 or so years.

I am old enough to remember when the US media was pretty normal, by Canadian and European standards. I was also raised in the Deep South and conditioned to see the liberal media as problematic, so when Fox became a thing in the 90s, I had this vague idea of it being just another news station (we had several and I couldn't tell them apart), but I remember when I noticed that they were different than all the other ones.

When I say NPR is liberal, I mean by American standards. They have tried, like most news organizations, to bring some balance to their operation for the sake of it, but the trying has caused them to evolve in unfortunate ways, like every US news organization.

Several studies were done in the 80s and 90s to show that most news anchors and producers for the major stations were liberal. No one was screening their political leanings for the job, usually; they were screening for talent, and the stats just fell like they did, same as they fall for the political affiliation of our most educated citizens: liberal.

All that means is that, for example, the normal (liberal) media treats sociological truths as reality rather than highly controversial theories. It is known that people in poverty often have very little control over their circumstances, and that racial minorities are more likely to be born into these circumstances, but if these facts were to be mentioned in the media, even without further implications, that would be evidence of a liberal bias. Talking about MLK day or black history month in positive terms is evidence of liberal bias. Talking about the UN in positive or even neutral terms is evidence of a liberal bias. I could go on.

I personally feel like the best liberal shows on MSNBC (IMO Maddow, Kornacki and Hayes) hit the bases pretty well, and they have people on who make the Republican case more convincingly than anyone on Fox because they seek out intellectuals or at least nice people rather than rabble-rousers.

ABC and NBC and CBS are still trying to be old school normal broadcast news (with various degrees of success) but CNN is terrible. They tried to capitalize on Fox's ratings strategy by branching out into the lalaland that is conservative politics in this country, but they failed miserably because they weren't willing to go as far as Fox. So to Fox viewers, CNN is emblematic of the liberal media more than anyone except MSNBC, and to everyone else, CNN is just crap sensationalist reporting.

[worry]

There's always PBS NewsHour with Ifill and Woodruff.

[Tsundoku]

Briar King, on 23 January 2015 - 08:39 PM, said:

I haven't been able to vote since Bush 2 term 1When I got married and moved I think someone hit a wrong button but my registration has been fucked ever since 03. I've tried to get it fixed on every Pres election since then and every time when I go I get stopped. Idk wtf happened but I've tried to correct it and I doubt I will try again cause I know I'd get irrate if I got stopped again.

Are you black/latino/registered Democrat?

This post has been edited by Sombra: 24 January 2015 - 03:52 AM

[Terez]

Happier news in American Politics: our same-sex marriage bans have been dropping like flies. Only 12 state bans remain, 4 of which have already been overturned in court with the decisions stayed pending appeal. Alabama's ban was overturned yesterday, with no stay on the decision; theirs is simply the latest ban to fall. Marriages began in Florida this month. Of the 8 bans which have not been overturned, some have been upheld by federal judges at the state level, and 4 have been upheld in the appeals circuit (which included some overturned bans being reversed). The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the appeal for that circuit (the 6th).

It is feasible that, by the time SCOTUS actually hears this case, more bans will have been overturned. There are currently three cases being appealed to the 5th circuit (including MS, LA, and TX); the arguments took place a couple of weeks ago and we're only waiting on the decision, which will almost certainly come before SCOTUS starts hearing arguments for the 6th circuit. It's pretty clear that the 5th circuit will overturn the remaining bans in its district, including one upheld ban (LA) and two already overturned (MS and TX) but stayed pending appeal.

In other words, it's quite possible that by the time SCOTUS makes its decision, same-sex marriage will already be legal in 41 states or more. SCOTUS will hear in the spring and make a decision sometime in late summer, and then marriage equality will be held nationwide as a constitutional right.

[McLovin]

Uh, the gay marriage fight just disgusts me. If you sat Bush, Cheney, Roberts, etc down and asked them, in private, off the record, whether gays should be allowed to marry, I bet all of them would say yes. But instead, to win elections, they had to put everyone through two decades of ridiculous political theater, just to get where most people believed it should be back in like 1992. So add Gingrich to that pile too...

[Terez]

Cheney has already supported it publicly, and was one of the first high-profile Republicans to do so, since he has a lesbian daughter. Rob Portman, Ohio senator who was considered for Romney's VP candidate, also came out in support because of his gay son. Two shining examples of Republicans having difficulty empathizing with anything that doesn't affect them personally.

[Vengeance]

For those who are unfamiliar with current Chicago politics here is a well researched and written paper.
rahms chicago

[Gnaw]

Terez, on 22 January 2015 - 07:22 AM, said:

I feel like I should expand a bit on the nature of the US media and how it has evolved over the last 30 or so years.

I am old enough to remember when the US media was pretty normal, by Canadian and European standards. I was also raised in the Deep South and conditioned to see the liberal media as problematic, so when Fox became a thing in the 90s, I had this vague idea of it being just another news station (we had several and I couldn't tell them apart), but I remember when I noticed that they were different than all the other ones.

When I say NPR is liberal, I mean by American standards. They have tried, like most news organizations, to bring some balance to their operation for the sake of it, but the trying has caused them to evolve in unfortunate ways, like every US news organization.

Several studies were done in the 80s and 90s to show that most news anchors and producers for the major stations were liberal. No one was screening their political leanings for the job, usually; they were screening for talent, and the stats just fell like they did, same as they fall for the political affiliation of our most educated citizens: liberal.

All that means is that, for example, the normal (liberal) media treats sociological truths as reality rather than highly controversial theories. It is known that people in poverty often have very little control over their circumstances, and that racial minorities are more likely to be born into these circumstances, but if these facts were to be mentioned in the media, even without further implications, that would be evidence of a liberal bias. Talking about MLK day or black history month in positive terms is evidence of liberal bias. Talking about the UN in positive or even neutral terms is evidence of a liberal bias. I could go on.

I personally feel like the best liberal shows on MSNBC (IMO Maddow, Kornacki and Hayes) hit the bases pretty well, and they have people on who make the Republican case more convincingly than anyone on Fox because they seek out intellectuals or at least nice people rather than rabble-rousers.

ABC and NBC and CBS are still trying to be old school normal broadcast news (with various degrees of success) but CNN is terrible. They tried to capitalize on Fox's ratings strategy by branching out into the lalaland that is conservative politics in this country, but they failed miserably because they weren't willing to go as far as Fox. So to Fox viewers, CNN is emblematic of the liberal media more than anyone except MSNBC, and to everyone else, CNN is just crap sensationalist reporting.

I think of it this way:

Ted Turner stuck a knife in the back of journalism when he proved that a news only station could make a profit.
The internet was a double barreled .12 gauge to the chest by making news wide spread and cheap.
Murdoch has gleefully danced it into the grave by making tabloid mainstream.

Cognitive dissonance take over. There's such a glut of "information" that most people only read/listen to whomever will tell them what they already "know".

[amphibian]

I don't know that your image of journalism ever actually existed.

My view of English language journalism since the 1700s is that by and large, it's mostly people putting out pablum and shock pieces to an audience that wants it. True investigative journalism is expensive and doesn't get anywhere near enough eyeballs to justify its existence outside a few tiny bastions.

I'm somewhat shaded by being a quasi pro journalist for combat sports. Quasi in that I didn't make it my full time profession, but also did get paid a decent amount of money for a short time.

I think all the Turner / Internet stuff did was accelerate the trends and start exposing more people directly to the content streams the journalists used to curate for us the audience.

The Murdoch model is really what stirred up the arch conservative yahoos because he figured out how to put forth a right wing media organization and then fuel funny or interesting shows and movies with his Fox Studios. He plays both sides and gives no shits about the consequences of such.

[Terez]

Romney just announced he's not running.

[Obdigore]

So, NYC just announced they are creating an anti-terrorism squad of 350 discrete members (so these guys aren't 'regular' cops who have other training, like SWAT generally is) who are going to be heavily armed and ride around NYC patrolling in APCs with machine guns. Yeehaw.

http://nypost.com/20...errorism-squad/
http://www.nyc.gov/h...ism_units.shtml


Hopefully they are going to be shooting stray dogs, since you literally have a higher chance of dying from a dog bite than you do from terrorism, be it foreign or domestic

http://www.economist...c/dangerofdeath
http://www.washingto...-united-states/

What the shit is this? As far as I'm aware, NYC hasn't had any terrorist activities since 9/11, and I'm pretty sure 350 guys on the ground with machine guns wouldn't have stopped Passenger Liners from being flown into buildings...

I don't get it. What is the point. The illusion of safety?

[amphibian]

NYC is actually a frequent target of deranged people with "probably not going to explode" bombs and/or guns.

I sort of like the idea of a large squad dedicated to truly learning good crowd control tactics - it would actually increase safety of everyone protesting or rioting to have that squad handling them instead of clueless beat cops or desk-based cops - but I have extremely little faith in anything resembling that idea actually occurring.

This seems more like the creation of a cowboy squad that will go around violating civil rights all over the city.

[HoosierDaddy]

Obdigore, on 31 January 2015 - 11:49 AM, said:

So, NYC just announced they are creating an anti-terrorism squad of 350 discrete members (so these guys aren't 'regular' cops who have other training, like SWAT generally is) who are going to be heavily armed and ride around NYC patrolling in APCs with machine guns. Yeehaw.

http://nypost.com/20...errorism-squad/
http://www.nyc.gov/h...ism_units.shtml


Hopefully they are going to be shooting stray dogs, since you literally have a higher chance of dying from a dog bite than you do from terrorism, be it foreign or domestic

http://www.economist...c/dangerofdeath
http://www.washingto...-united-states/

What the shit is this? As far as I'm aware, NYC hasn't had any terrorist activities since 9/11, and I'm pretty sure 350 guys on the ground with machine guns wouldn't have stopped Passenger Liners from being flown into buildings...

I don't get it. What is the point. The illusion of safety?

There was the bomb placed in a car that didn't go off in Times Square. I'm sure there have been others.

But yeah. Empire State tax dollars could probably be better directed.

[worry]

Remember when conventional wisdom suggested that the House had all the crazies and the Senate is where all the mature adult GOPers did real business?
http://talkingpoints...ng-hands-toilet