• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

dandy_warhol said:
There are crazies everywhere. Wonder where they got his brilliant idea.

Germany far right arrests
Click to expand...
In Germany? Well I never...

No Way Omg GIF by Lifetime
 
michaelskis said:
What next, blame me being independent for my middle son's autism or my wife's depression? How about all the other members on this site, who I won't name, within their family. Is it acceptable to call them out and their potential impacts of their night meetings or lifestyle? How about those on this website with mental health issues... are you to blame?
Click to expand...

I think you're reading way into my comment and apologize if my intent was misconstrued.
 
mendelman said:
Who is part of voting to approve/deny Federal legislation/law and federal judge appointments under which you and I (two people in different states) must comply/adhere, when applicable?

Also, said Federalist paper is a historical document outlining the contemporaneous original conception of the Senate at that time, which has changed dramatically in the intervening ~230 years. It's a nice historical research document, but should not be used as a basis for complete understanding of the Senate's current conception.
Click to expand...
The other reality is that until the early 1900's Senator's were appointed by the individual State Governments instead of elected by the populous. Their purpose was to protect their State's rights and the funding that came from each state. It was to prevent the Federal Government from allocating all the resources to places like NY or VA. The method of direct taxation in the form of federal income taxes changed as part of the same package of constitutional amendments.

I hate to say this, but the operations of the Federal Government and how they interact with State Governments is no longer representative of the intentions of the founding fathers. It has gotten so out of hand in some ways, and improved substantially in a few, that even constitutional lawyers can't agree on the legality of most of what goes on.
 
michaelskis said:
The other reality is that until the early 1900's Senator's were appointed by the individual State Governments instead of elected by the populous. Their purpose was to protect their State's rights and the funding that came from each state. It was to prevent the Federal Government from allocating all the resources to places like NY or VA. The method of direct taxation in the form of federal income taxes changed as part of the same package of constitutional amendments.

I hate to say this, but the operations of the Federal Government and how they interact with State Governments is no longer representative of the intentions of the founding fathers. It has gotten so out of hand in some ways, and improved substantially in a few, that even constitutional lawyers can't agree on the legality of most of what goes on.
Click to expand...
But we longer count people as 3/5ths and we don’t implicitly allow slavery and now explicitly give citizenship to native born people.

Let’s not be too concerned with or stuck on originalism.
 
Last edited:
mendelman said:
But we longer count people as 3/5ths and we don’t implicitly allow slavery and now explicitly give citizenship to native born people.

Let’s not be too concerned with or stuck on originalism.
Click to expand...
Originalism is the reason our country can't compete with most other western countries in lots of things. The idea that our country shouldn't change over 200+ year is asinine to me. I am happy that Constitutional Amendments are hard to pass, but we are pretty due for a couple MAJOR changes in that document.

Then again, I can see how Jefferson probably understood ChatGPT so we don't need to consider any impacts of it on our society. :rofl:
 
mendelman said:
But we longer count people as 3/5ths and we don’t implicitly allow slavery and now explicitly give citizenship to native born people.

Let’s not be too concerned with or stuck on originalism.
Click to expand...
Ah... yea, that is part of the "improved substantially in a few" elements that you read over in my original statement. As is voting rights for all
 
Bubba said:
Which are...?
Click to expand...
So just to name some changes necessary:

  1. DC gets voting rights.
  2. Removing the Electoral College in its current form, as it provides no value. Winner gets the most votes.
  3. Equal Rights Amendment / Marriage Equality. Speaks for itself.
  4. 2nd Amendment Updates for the 21st Century. We can't make changes via legislation because we have a party who thinks the original document is all that matters. Let's change that discussion.
  5. Campaign spending / dark money out of politics. Make it clear who is a person and who is not. Dark money is bad for our country.
  6. Balanced or at least inflation adjusted balanced budget. Require our government to try and be more agile, spend less, and actually raise the money necessary to fund the things that are important.
  7. Term Limits for Representatives and Senators. Speaks for itself. I would also agree to an age limit of 70 for all Federal Elected Officials.
There are probably a lot more, but we are very stuck in a world where the R's and the D's can't agree that the sky is blue, so I am certain we won't ever see the reforms necessary to make our republic stronger, more resilient, and better for the next 200+ years.
 
michaelskis said:
Ah... yea, that is part of the "improved substantially in a few" elements that you read over in my original statement. As is voting rights for all
Click to expand...
But you are still implying an originalist position on the Senate despite it being significantly changed over the last 230 years.

It really doesn't matter in 2022 (except for historical knowledge) what the original conception of the Senate was in 1790 because our nation and all of advanced human civilization is vastly different now.

Perhaps originalism may have mattered in 1815 as the cultural/economic/social differences between 1815 and 1790 wasn't that dramatic, but not now.

But regardless of all of this, my original disagreement with @Bubba about everyone's political stakes in all US Senate seats still applies and always applied even since late 18th century conception - the people in the US Senate is due to political decisions by the people of their state, but the decisions of every member of Congress (House and Senate) and the President has direct application to all people within the USA's nation boundaries/jurisdiction as has been their fundamental function since inception.

estromberg said:
535

100 senators, 435 Representatives

538 (hence the name of Nate Silver's website) electoral votes.
100 + 435 + 3 (DC)
Click to expand...
Well...if we want to get really pedantic (given our 50%+1 system and political bifurcation), it's only 1/270.

218 House
51 Senate
1 President
 
mendelman said:
But you are still implying an originalist position on the Senate despite it being significantly changed over the last 230 years.

It really doesn't matter in 2022 (except for historical knowledge) what the original conception of the Senate was in 1790 because our nation and all of advanced human civilization is vastly different now.

Perhaps originalism may have mattered in 1815 as the cultural/economic/social differences between 1815 and 1790 wasn't that dramatic, but not now.

But regardless of all of this, my original disagreement with @Bubba about everyone's political stakes in all US Senate seats still applies and always applied even since late 18th century conception - the people in the US Senate is due to political decisions by the people of their state, but the decisions of every member of Congress (House and Senate) and the President has direct application to all people within the USA's nation boundaries/jurisdiction as has been their fundamental function since inception.
Click to expand...
No, I am bluntly stating that the founding fathers would not recognize the operations of the Federal Government that we have today.
 
michaelskis said:
No, I am bluntly stating that the founding fathers would not recognize the operations of the Federal Government that we have today.
Click to expand...
And that's an objectively bad thing to you?

It was designed by them to evolve, so, if we're projecting values on them anyways, I think they'd think it's actually pretty neat-o.

Really...they'd be too dumbstruck by a modern Walmart store to even have any extra capacity left to comprehend anything else, but...

Hasan Minhaj Idk GIF by Patriot Act
 
Hink said:
There are probably a lot more
Click to expand...

More definition and clarity on the composition of SCOTUS?

More exposition on the applicability of the Electoral College and supermajorities, majorities, and pluralities?

Clarity on the personhood of corporations?

Clarity on the role of the Federal government on States?
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
Griner exchanged for Russian arms dealer? Good deal? For who? Talk amongst yourselves.
Click to expand...

It could have been members of the Taliban :daydream:

Prisoner exchanges are always controversial. You want to bring back your citizen, and the other country is going to use that desire as leverage. Is it a fair trade? Could it ever be a fair trade?
 
Planit said:
Hell the scary thing was Hershel got that much of the vote both times. It shows the blind voting patterns for political party only.
Click to expand...
Herschel's nomination was just like that of Clarence Thomas. Republican cynicism and disrespect for every elected office.
 
mendelman said:
Let’s not be too concerned with or stuck on originalism.
Click to expand...
To temper and refine my above rhetoric more, originalism can be used for arguments by anyone, and we need to clarify, when making arguments, to narrowly define when we think originalism is useful or not.

SCOTUS reviews the Independent State Legislature theory

I agree with the side opposing this theory are not consistent with the original intent and 230 years of legal procedure and outcomes.
 
SlaveToTheGrind said:
Griner exchanged for Russian arms dealer? Good deal? For who? Talk amongst yourselves.
Click to expand...

I heard a theory yesterday that the negotiation was for Griner were because of political reasons.
She is a homosexual, African-American, female, liberal, where as Paul Whealan is a white straight male that did not fit the political agenda. His brother came out in defense of the President yesterday on the news and my wife pointed out that of course he is not going to criticize Biden when he is the only hope of his brother's release.

Personally, I think there is more to the picture than politics of the situation being that Whelan is former military.
 
michaelskis said:
I heard a theory yesterday that the negotiation was for Griner were because of political reasons.
She is a homosexual, African-American, female, liberal, where as Paul Whealan is a white straight male that did not fit the political agenda. His brother came out in defense of the President yesterday on the news and my wife pointed out that of course he is not going to criticize Biden when he is the only hope of his brother's release.

Personally, I think there is more to the picture than politics of the situation being that Whelan is former military.
Click to expand...
Just so we are clear, the family of Paul Whalen, the guy the Republicans all now care about, are on the side of the Administration. They understand why Griner could be dealt and Mr. Whalen could not.

I find it odd that people think it is appropriate to be angry that someone, who everyone agrees was not legally tried and was in essence being held as a political hostage, was freed. I get the argument about the person she was traded for, and I get the desire to have Mr. Whalen also released, but why the strawman stuff about who she is, etc.

Griner was freed because that was the deal the Administration could make happen. Mr. Whalen is considered a US Spy, even though all accounts say this isn't true. Russia is holding him until we catch a Russian spy and they can use him to trade. This isn't a failure of the United States efforts, it is the complexity that the relationship the US has with Russia at this point in time.

We try so hard to find "theories" that fit our bias, but in the end, we should just be happy that Griner got out. Now we continue to work to get Mr. Whalen home.

Odd the effort people go to to divide our country.
 
michaelskis said:
I heard a theory yesterday that the negotiation was for Griner were because of political reasons.
She is a homosexual, African-American, female, liberal, where as Paul Whealan is a white straight male that did not fit the political agenda. His brother came out in defense of the President yesterday on the news and my wife pointed out that of course he is not going to criticize Biden when he is the only hope of his brother's release.

Personally, I think there is more to the picture than politics of the situation being that Whelan is former military.
Click to expand...

The big thing is that Griner was a political prisoner--her punishment was HIGHLY inconsistent with typical practices in Russia. A THC charge there is typically a fine, not a decade in a labor camp. Russia decided to play a game, and they have a distinct habit of treating LGBTQ and racial minorities far more harshly.

Whealan is a more open question. His charge is espionage, and his treatment is consistent with that (whether the charges are legit is the question). As former military with 4-country citizenship and then working in the security industry in multiple countries, his circumstances are far different than a ballplayer.

Of note: Trump was unable to do shit about either of them despite being besties with Vlad.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
The big thing is that Griner was a political prisoner--her punishment was HIGHLY inconsistent with typical practices in Russia. A THC charge there is typically a fine, not a decade in a labor camp. Russia decided to play a game, and they have a distinct habit of treating LGBTQ and racial minorities far more harshly.

Whealan is a more open question. His charge is espionage, and his treatment is consistent with that (whether the charges are legit is the question). As former military with 4-country citizenship and then working in the security industry in multiple countries, his circumstances are far different than a ballplayer.

Of note: Trump was unable to do shit about either of them despite being besties with Vlad.
Click to expand...
Why would Trump be able to do anything about Griner? She was arrested in February.
 
www.politico.com

Sinema switches to independent, shaking up the Senate

The Arizona senator won't say whether she's running for reelection but said in an interview she doesn't expect a change in how the Senate operates.
www.politico.com www.politico.com


Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is changing her party affiliation to independent, delivering a jolt to Democrats’ narrow majority and Washington along with it.

In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator told POLITICO that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. “Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” she said.
Click to expand...
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Of note: Trump was unable to do shit about either of them despite being besties with Vlad.
Click to expand...

And Trump is no longer president and lord willing never will be again. So his involvement in this and any further federal government action is irrelevant.

So I am not 100% sure why his name keeps getting brought up. That is unless he is indicted for the riots.

Back to the matter at hand, I wonder if the arms dealer that we traded will be a problem for us, or other countries in the future. I cannot imagine that it was an easy decision, but I completely agree that she was a political prisoner. In the eyes of the Russian government, it was a fair trade, an American Basketball Player for an Arms Dealer. Does not seem much like an equitable trade. But I also keep in mind that she was someone's wife, friend, teammate, neighbor, daughter, and mentor. To those who are close to her, it was more than a fair trade. I don't know what I would have done if I was in Biden's shoes on this one.

It is in moments like this that I think it would be awesome to have Jeb Bartlett in the WH.
 
Bubba said:
I'll also note that none of the other living former U.S. Presidents were able to do anything about them either.
Click to expand...
I would imagine though that all other living former Presidents wouldn't bash the current President for his handling of the situation. You know, because they don't suck.
 
Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is changing her party affiliation to independent, delivering a jolt to Democrats’ narrow majority and Washington along with it.

In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator told POLITICO that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. “Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” she said.

Nothing will change except that she ran on a platform of left learning values and has voted very right leaning especially on big pharma who backs her up. She can run all she wants next year, but I don't think the state will reelect her. The state feels betrayed. Except of course the Republicans who didn't vote for her because she's their kind of person. Reality is dems won't vote for her and neither will the GOP unless she makes the full switch to GOP. My personal unvalidated opinion, she learned there's big money in big pharma and just wants the money and power. Now that the senate is changed she no longer has power as a junior senator that was able to hold up key votes so no one really cares about her anymore. She also represents herself, not this state. I'm just bitter about bad senators.
 
Hink said:
I would imagine though that all other living former Presidents wouldn't bash the current President for his handling of the situation. You know, because they don't suck.
Click to expand...
Not defending Trump at all. I'll also note that the notion of former Presidents not criticizing a current President left the building prior to Trump exiting the White House.
 
DVD said:
Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is changing her party affiliation to independent, delivering a jolt to Democrats’ narrow majority and Washington along with it.

In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator told POLITICO that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. “Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” she said.

Nothing will change except that she ran on a platform of left learning values and has voted very right leaning especially on big pharma who backs her up. She can run all she wants next year, but I don't think the state will reelect her. The state feels betrayed. Except of course the Republicans who didn't vote for her because she's their kind of person. Reality is dems won't vote for her and neither will the GOP unless she makes the full switch to GOP. My personal unvalidated opinion, she learned there's big money in big pharma and just wants the money and power. Now that the senate is changed she no longer has power as a junior senator that was able to hold up key votes so no one really cares about her anymore. She also represents herself, not this state. I'm just bitter about bad senators.
Click to expand...
Is this just an attempt to avoid being primaried? Will she be able to get on the ballot for the general election as an independent?
 
Bubba said:
Is this just an attempt to avoid being primaried? Will she be able to get on the ballot for the general election as an independent?
Click to expand...
Probably...but look at the votes your recent 3rd party Senate candidate received. That is the likely outcome if she runs as a 3rd party.
 
Bubba said:
Is this just an attempt to avoid being primaried? Will she be able to get on the ballot for the general election as an independent?
Click to expand...
She can get on the ballot as independent. It's not hard in Arizona. The problem is funding and little things like GOP gets the voter list and Dems get the voter list free, but independent candidates need to pay for the voter list. Arizona is friendly to independent voters like me, but not so much to independent candidates. I think she'll just not run or not get the votes in a couple years. It's still a two party system. She won't get Dem votes because she betrayed them and she won't get GOP votes because she's not GOP. To be honest I don't know what becoming independent does for her other than not having to listen to the majority whip. Not sure how it impacts what committees she gets on.
 
DVD said:
She can get on the ballot as independent. It's not hard in Arizona. The problem is funding and little things like GOP gets the voter list and Dems get the voter list free, but independent candidates need to pay for the voter list. Arizona is friendly to independent voters like me, but not so much to independent candidates. I think she'll just not run or not get the votes in a couple years. It's still a two party system. She won't get Dem votes because she betrayed them and she won't get GOP votes because she's not GOP. To be honest I don't know what becoming independent does for her other than not having to listen to the majority whip. Not sure how it impacts what committees she gets on.
Click to expand...
The system is rigged at all levels.
 
Hink said:
So just to name some changes necessary:
  1. DC gets voting rights.
  2. Removing the Electoral College in its current form, as it provides no value. Winner gets the most votes.
  3. Equal Rights Amendment / Marriage Equality. Speaks for itself.
  4. 2nd Amendment Updates for the 21st Century. We can't make changes via legislation because we have a party who thinks the original document is all that matters. Let's change that discussion.
  5. Campaign spending / dark money out of politics. Make it clear who is a person and who is not. Dark money is bad for our country.
  6. Balanced or at least inflation adjusted balanced budget. Require our government to try and be more agile, spend less, and actually raise the money necessary to fund the things that are important.
  7. Term Limits for Representatives and Senators. Speaks for itself. I would also agree to an age limit of 70 for all Federal Elected Officials.
Click to expand...
I'll add:
  • Explicitly ban political parties
 
mendelman said:
I'll add:
  • Explicitly ban political parties
Click to expand...

I would much rather see a person name and have some vague idea of what they're going to bring to the table. I don't like seeing an (R) or (D) next to a name.

There's a push to have partisan local elections like school board & such. The candidates now are using code words (conservative) and icons (elephants) on their signs but never saying the party.
 
hink said:
So just to name some changes necessary:
DC gets voting rights.
Removing the Electoral College in its current form, as it provides no value. Winner gets the most votes.
Equal Rights Amendment / Marriage Equality. Speaks for itself.
2nd Amendment Updates for the 21st Century. We can't make changes via legislation because we have a party who thinks the original document is all that matters. Let's change that discussion.
Campaign spending / dark money out of politics. Make it clear who is a person and who is not. Dark money is bad for our country.
Balanced or at least inflation adjusted balanced budget. Require our government to try and be more agile, spend less, and actually raise the money necessary to fund the things that are important.
Term Limits for Representatives and Senators. Speaks for itself. I would also agree to an age limit of 70 for all Federal Elected Officials.
Click to expand...

mendelman said:
I'll add:
  • Explicitly ban political parties
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that list. I think electoral college still has value, but not under the existing format. Eliminate gerrymandering from congressional district and popular vote per congressional districts get that district vote, and then the popular vote per state gets the last 2 votes.

As for 2nd Amendment.... what changes do you have in mind?

Everything else I am 100% in agreement with.
 
michaelskis said:
I agree with most of that list. I think electoral college still has value, but not under the existing format. Eliminate gerrymandering from congressional district and popular vote per congressional districts get that district vote, and then the popular vote per state gets the last 2 votes.

As for 2nd Amendment.... what changes do you have in mind?

Everything else I am 100% in agreement with.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Nope. Electoral college needs to be 100% scrapped.

It was simply a compromise bastardization creation and was problematic from the beginning.

Planit said:
There's a push to have partisan local elections like school board & such. The candidates now are using code words (conservative) and icons (elephants) on their signs but never saying the party.
Click to expand...
Very bad idea...as you are clearly aware.
 
Back
Top