US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Skybird]

100 F-35 seem to not see delivery to Turkey so soon. Well, that is a good move. To hand over such critical knowhow and electronics to such an untrustworthy "partner" who openly eyes an intimate relation with Russia is somethign that I never understood anyway.

They said that Turkey also contributes electronics to the building of the F-35. This must urgently be changed, even if it will cost time and money.

[Catfish]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...urkeys-erdogan

[Skybird]

What was this old saying? Enemies make you stronger. Alliance partners weaken you. Or was that a stratagem I have read somewhere.


Maybe the US would be best off if simply leaving NATO and leave Europeans to caring for their own business all by themselves. I would understand it. After all, most of what concerns NATO today are threats that affect Europe and Europeans and Europeans' freedom and homes. Not America's. For the US its pretty much uninteresting who rules the Black Sea, whether the Balkan is stable or not, and what the balance of power looks like in the Baltic.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

100 F-35 seem to not see delivery to Turkey so soon. Well, that is a good move. To hand over such critical knowhow and electronics to such an untrustworthy "partner" who openly eyes an intimate relation with Russia is somethign that I never understood anyway.

They said that Turkey also contributes electronics to the building of the F-35. This must urgently be changed, even if it will cost time and money.

But, but...


Isn't intimate relations with Russia a good thing? Trump seems to think its a really, really good thing...


So much so, he drooped trou and bent over for Vlad at that news conference about a month ago...














<O>

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by vienna

But, but...

Isn't intimate relations with Russia a good thing? Trump seems to think its a really, really good thing...

So much so, he drooped trou and bent over for Vlad at that news conference about a month ago...

Trump could not differ between a performance by the Bolshoi ballet and a dog fight between two pitbulls in a cage. He only knows that you can make money with selling tickets for both.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Skybird

100 F-35 seem to not see delivery to Turkey so soon.

Lucky bastards.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...urkeys-erdogan

The above article was from January 2017 so perhaps now all they will get are a few Spitfires and Hurricanes from Duxford.

[eddie]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The above article was from January 2017 so perhaps now all they will get are a few Spitfires and Hurricanes from Duxford.

That would be such a waste of good aircraft Jim.lol

Originally Posted by Skybird

Maybe the US would be best off if simply leaving NATO and leave Europeans to caring for their own business all by themselves. I would understand it. After all, most of what concerns NATO today are threats that affect Europe and Europeans and Europeans' freedom and homes. Not America's. For the US its pretty much uninteresting who rules the Black Sea, whether the Balkan is stable or not, and what the balance of power looks like in the Baltic.

You see that completely wrong - the US is literally sewn to the EU or rather to their markets. Therefore, Trump advocates Brexit to promote disagreements within the EU.

The whole thing has only a heavy catch - if Beijing suddenly decides to reconnect its currency to gold, such states as Russia, Brazil, Pakistan, Mexico, etc., take along.
Thus, the dollar as a reserve currency is obsolete and the United States and Brexit GB are out of world trade.

Edit:
Although @Sky
You are absolutely right with the US (including Brexit GB), we should part with them, they are empty and irrelevant.

[August]

Originally Posted by Bleiente

You are absolutely right with the US (including Brexit GB), we should part with them, they are empty and irrelevant.

[Skybird]

The following text is a bot translation. I do not post just a link, becasue for whatever the reaosn is, Google Translator does not process the website as a whole like in earlier examples, so I needed to enter the text for translation and copy it, it was the onyl way it worked. Entering the URL into the translator results in errors.

Its an essay on ten reasons that work against how the American election system was meant to work. The article was published in the German SZ newspaper, which is beside the TAZ the leftiest of the major national newspaper over here. Its rare that I read something in it that I agree with, or like, they are quote antisemtic, anti-Israel, "progressive", anti-US, pIslamophile etc, and so i would not care to post them usually, but here they have hit the marks. That I am no fan of general election systems and voting rights becasue voters are not fit for the task and also have dubious rights at best to claim rights over others, should be known by now, i did not hide it. But my usual arguments are more general, deal with the human deficits. In this essay, more practical, pragmatic complictions get listed.

It all is an argument for not expecting a bettering of the polarized situation in the US any time soon, or for a reversing of the fading of political interest and trust in parties in general.

Original German link: LINK

When William Henry Harrison died, there were many questions. Who should follow him? And for how long? And what power should the successor have? That would not have mattered much if it had not been for Harrison in 1841, just as President of the United States of America, that time was blessed. He was the first president to die in office. And the then young constitution had no answer. Should the vice president take over? And if so, should he finish the term? Or should there be new elections quickly? At that time, his deputy John Tyler took over. But he always had to fight that he could be denied the legitimacy.

What was more astonishing, however, than the fact that the US constitution did not yield anything to it, was how long it took for the open question to finally be settled in a constitutional amendment. That was in 1967, 126 years after Harrison's death. Which says a lot about the willingness of Americans to reform when it comes to constitution and democracy.

There is no question that democracy in the US is in danger. That Donald Trump sits as the 45th President of the United States of America in the White House may be one of the reasons. He whims at the constitution, not afraid to fire an FBI boss who is investigating Trump's people. Above all, his electoral victory is a symptom of a democracy and constitutional crisis that has been smoldering for a long time. The midterms, the midterm elections, are now at the door. In November, the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate are re-elected. And again, the crisis can be observed in all its different forms. Ten reasons why one of the oldest democracies in the world should not need another 126 years for reform:

1. The electoral system is antediluvian and barely manageable

A nationwide election, but as many electoral rights as there are states: whether senator or deputy, how someone has won his election, also depends on how elected in each state. Most are chosen with electronic voting devices. Since almost every state has its own machines. In most states, citizens have to register as voters before they can vote. In others, 13 to be precise, there are automatic procedures for doing so. In some states, citizens can register on the day of the election. In others, this has to happen weeks in advance. In some states, citizens can register in almost every public agency. In others, there are whole tracts of land without a registration authority. Some require a pass to vote. Others do not. There are states that allow voters to vote before the election day. Others do not. There are also oddities such as that in Illinois, the authorities are obliged to issue "I have chosen" label to the voters. That costs $ 30 million annually. How easy or difficult it is to cast your vote depends mainly on where you live in the United States.

2. The US is in the permanent election campaign

Every two years, it is voted nationwide in the US. The House of Deputies always complete. In addition, a third of the Senate, every four years the president, the governors of the states, the representatives in the state parliaments, mayors. And again and again there are special elections in between when a senator or deputy resigns for whatever reason. The duration of the election campaigns is uniquely long worldwide. The candidates of the parties for a constituency or a senatorial post are determined only in lengthy primaries. The election campaign often runs for months. For a presidential election, potential candidates announce their interest in the spring of last year's election. The 2016 election campaign took 597 days. As soon as one election campaign is over, the next one begins. This reduces the time windows in which something else politically happens. At federal level, for example, Congress has to pass laws only a year after the presidential election and in the year after the midterms, relatively unaffected by election campaigns.

3. Voter turnout is too low

Even in highly dramatic battles over the White House, voter turnout hardly exceeds 55 percent. For the election in 2016, 100 million Americans stayed at home. Almost a third of the population. Among the reasons may include that many are fundamentally disappointed with the policy. But that is too easy. It is also majority voting that prevents many from voting. In the vast majority of electoral districts and states, the result is already clear. Either the Democrat or the Republican wins. Very rarely an independent candidate. This lowers motivation on both sides.

Even when it comes to the presidency, that's the way it is. Ultimately, what results the candidates in the states achieve. And there, the majorities in most states have been concreted for decades on one side or the other. Last but not least, Election Day is always a Tuesday in the USA. If you want to vote, you often have to take it off. However, often only those who have a steady job and a nice boss can do that. So far, the legislators seem to accept that.

4. Gerryymandering destroys confidence in democracy

Only as a game of thought: In North Rhine-Westphalia, the black-yellow coalition reformed the constituencies. And so that the probability that ever again the SPD wins a constituency, goes to zero. In NRW, that would only be half as bad. The proportional representation law ensures that the parties are allowed to send delegates to parliament according to their share of the vote. In the US, however, this kind of creative constituency design, called gerrymandering, has become a real fashion that is experiencing a boom, especially in Republican countries. Constituencies are not even remotely reminiscent of circles. But rather bananas with strange protrusions on the ends. Or horseshoes, so that a more democratic-minded area can be excluded. This guarantees that a party always gets the majority. What does the Supreme Court say about the US Supreme Court? So far nothing. He did not dismiss a complaint until June. Because of form errors. The court is mostly conservative.

5. Dialing is made unnecessarily difficult

President Trump supports the idea: If you want to vote, you have to identify yourself. The claim hits parts of US society on a sore spot. Confidence in government institutions is so low that many refuse to even get an ID card. A compulsory identification, as in Germany, is generally not available in the USA. Those who do not have a driver's license often have no other ID card. Especially voters from educationally disadvantaged groups are afraid to get an ID.

More and more states are therefore denied access to the voting booth, even if they are registered voters. In the state of Wisconsin, a federal judge has meanwhile stopped the ID obligation five years after its introduction. And with the remark that nine percent of voters did not have the required ID. Black voters are 50 percent more likely to have no ID than white voters.

For election in 2016, the rule was in force again. Hillary Clinton has lost 23,000 votes against Trump. And then, among other things, made the ID rule responsible for their defeat. The assumption is supported by data on turnout. In states with an ID requirement, voter turnout has fallen by 1.7 percent on average. In states without ID obligation by 1.3 percent. And in Wisconsin by 3.3 percent.

6. Too many people are not allowed to vote

Crystal Mason was jailed for five years in March 2018. And that's because she went to vote in November 2016. She did not want that. She had already been sentenced to prison in 2012 for a tax offense. And came in 2016 prematurely on parole from jail. What she did not know: In Texas, her home state, no one is allowed to vote in prison or serve a probationary sentence. She was convicted as if she were a professional fraudster. The rule applies to a whole range of states. And it means that more than six million US citizens are no longer allowed to vote. It is obvious that according to figures of the "Sentencing Project" the rule affects one out of 13 black voters in the USA. But only one out of 56 non-black voters.

7. The right to vote is not paid enough as a civil right

The Brennan Center for Justice at the Law School of New York University has just published a study that reveals a scandal that should have hit huge waves. Between 2014 and 2016, 16 million voters across the United States have been removed from voter lists. Often in automated and sometimes proven faulty procedures. Sometimes all people who allegedly no longer live in the constituency are deleted. Thousands of people are being dropped, and the authorities say they are not eligible to vote because of a crime. For no apparent reason.

Thousands of voters in Brooklyn were sent back in New York's April 19, 2016 primary election because their names were no longer on voter lists. The cleanup of the lists may be fine if done correctly. And possibly also prevent electoral fraud. However, researchers at the Brennan Center for Justice have found that sometimes the cleanup itself is fraudulent in preventing unwanted voters from voting. Five states have illegally cleared their electoral roll over the past five years. And four states have enacted cleansing rules that are unlawful from the researchers' point of view. There, for example, voters are automatically deleted without informing them in advance and giving them an opportunity to object.

8. The two-party system has become obsolete

Orange juice is available in the USA with lots of pulp, with little, with some pulp or without. And that from juice concentrate or directly pressed, organic and conventional. The 328 million US citizens can vote here. Every day. Only in politics, they have only two options: Democrats or Republicans. There are other parties. Realistically, they have no chance of achieving anything. The system is crumbly. It offers no political home to all those who do not want to and can not locate in one of the two major parties. And that makes the system vulnerable to accidents. Accidents, as Trump is one.

The numbers: Trump was in the 2016 primaries for 14 million voters the favorite. That is just six percent of the 230 million eligible voters. That was enough to make him a Republican candidate. And because he was the Republican candidate, 63 million Americans voted for him. Which is also only 27 percent of eligible voters. In other words, anyone who manages to win over a good quarter of the electorate wins all power in Washington. Three quarters of eligible voters feel in doubt not represented.

9. Electoral College disregards the citizen's will

Hillary Clinton had three million more votes than Donald Trump. Three million votes that simply did not count. That's because of the presidential election system. The crucial thing is to win as many electoral votes in the states. And there is: The winner takes all, the winner gets everything. Each federal state broadcasts electoral males into Electoral College, the body that elects the president in the end. Low-income countries are rather over-represented there. This should prevent the populous coastal states from dominating the country.

Against the "The winner takes all" rule but now the resistance is growing. Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, lawyer and Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig, and former Al Gore lawyer David Boies co-founded the Equal Votes campaign. And now succinctly sued the states of California, Texas, Massachusetts and South Carolina. Their goal is to abolish the winner takes all rule, which is practiced in 48 states. Best before the 2020 election.

Instead, the percentage of votes should determine how many electors are awarded candidates in one state. An example: In Texas, Hillary Clinton won just under 3.9 million votes in 2016, Trump 4.7 million votes. Nevertheless, Trump was awarded all 38 electoral votes there. According to the model of Equal Vote, Clinton would have won 16 electoral votes there, Trump 20. And the remaining two votes would probably have received the third place with just over three percent libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

10. The money is ruining US democracy

Jeff Beals decided spontaneously to be a Democratic candidate for Congress in the 19th district of New York State. He wanted to be different. He is not a financial lawyer or businessman like the other Democratic candidates. But a teacher, a former diplomat. He ran for office. And got a call from his party in the days after. The first question to him was not what he wanted content. With which he wants to convince people to choose him. The first question was: how much money do you bring together? Beals told his story to the podcast "This American Life". Several hundred thousand dollars for the pre-election campaign. And later more than two million dollars for the election campaign against the Republican candidate. So much money he would have had to raise to have a chance.

What he has noticed in the election campaign: He can not get that much money without bending himself politically. Beals wants about a uniform health insurance for all. In the Democratic Party, the idea is controversial. At most, the party establishment wants to be nailed down to the phrase "affordable health insurance for all". And the main donors in Beals constituency see the same. He did not get the money he needed to make himself known throughout the district. He lost the area code significantly. Of the 35,000 votes cast, he won only 4600 for himself.

His case shows that money is the most important force in the US democratic process. Anyone who knows big donors on his side does not have to worry about how many TV and radio spots he will send, how many posters he can put up. But donors have a clear political agenda. You choose very precisely which candidate represents your interests. Whether that is also the interests of the general public, does not matter at first.

Gaining money is one of the most important activities of a congressman today. Up to four hours a day, they sit in call centers at their party headquarters and call out to strangers begging for money, individual congressmen report. In addition there are donation dinners and receptions.

The system is still perverted since the Supreme Court decided in 2010 that companies and organizations have a political opinion and can underline it with donations. Direct donations to parties and candidates are capped. But instead, thanks to the ruling, there are more and more so-called super PACs, to which unlimited money can be given.

Super PACs are basically very powerful election aid groups that together pumped $ 1.1 billion into the presidential campaign in 2016. Their donors do not always want to be visible. But the candidates and the parties who are indirectly supported with the money know very well who helped them there. Members who have won their election with the help of Super PACs will avoid angering their patrons.

[Mr Quatro]

Good find Sky ... a lot to read, but good at pointing out a few of our voting deficiencies.

May I add one observation that I find hard to believe, but true ...

Since the under 21 age group was allowed to vote since June 1970

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty...s_Constitution

The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) to the United States Constitution prohibits the states and the federal government from using age as a reason for denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States who are at least eighteen years old. The drive to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 grew across the country during the 1960s

No election has ever been over turned by this younger age group of 21 and under ... what I mean is that if all of their votes were to be counted for the losing party ... that party still would not have won.

[August]

What claptrap. The Electoral system works perfectly. It works just as it was designed and it is vital to keeping the United States united. Without it the country is governed by just 4 or 5 and there is absolutely no reason for the other 45 to put up with it.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually the Electoral College system was designed to preserve the States' autonomy, i.e. keep them separate and preserve their individual power. The idea was that, while they had to be united to survive they didn't want to give up what they had. Madison wanted all the power to rest in the hands of the People. Others wanted the power to belong to the States. The People were never meant to vote in a Presidential Elections. The States were to appoint the Electors in whatever manner they thought best. As it turned out more and more States decided that it was best to let the People decide.

I see it both ways. On the one hand if the EC was done away with then what happened in 2000 could conceivably happen many times over, with multiple recounts happening over the whole country and a decision possibly never being reached. On the other hand it's not the land that does the voting, or the States proper. If the People are to decide, then is it right for the States to overturn that decision with an all-or-nothing process? In fact it hasn't always been that way. It used to be that the Electors were aligned by votes within the States. The same argument made for the Nation could also be made at the State level. If Utah has six Electors and 60% of the voters are Republican, 30 % Democrat and 10% "other", is it really fair for all six Electors to be Republican? Some States used to divide it; Maine and Nebraska still do.

So the EC system was created so the States elect the President, and the People didn't. It still works out that way, even though the people are allowed to vote for the Electors. Is it right? Is it fair? I don't know. I do see that people are unhappy when they think they're voting for the President but the candidate who the people want loses to the candidate the States mandate.

Don't take this to mean I'm unhappy with the last Presidential Election. I am, but I didn't want either one of them. "None Of The Above" doesn't get a vote.

[mapuc]

Each country has their own type of voting system

I may think it is weird or unfair.

Well I don't live in those countries and it is their citizens who have to protest against it.

And I have not seen millions of American in the street demonstrating against the voting system they have.

Markus