America

[nw6675]

Yet all parties do it.

That's what they said. "It's splitting up the districts to hand a majority to the party drawing the map..."

 

[Buzz Rules]

That's what they said. "It's splitting up the districts to hand a majority to the party drawing the map..."

Yes but usually only one party is accused of doing it, when both do in reality.

 

[nw6675]

Yes but usually only one party is accused of doing it, when both do in reality.

True

 

[LuvOrlando]

In a perfect world, this is how it would work. However, in THIS world, state voting districts are gerrymandered beyond belief, to the point that in many states, minority rules- just like in Congress.

Maybe but we can change that in a few short cycles if it is necessary.

Power can only be taken if we give it up, all 330 million of us best get to asserting ourselves locally to right the ship. The construct of the country is written with the underlying assumption that humans protect their own interests. If we cease to behave in favor of our own best interests and let the special interests thumb the scales we will have noone to blame but ourselves for failure. Tipping the scales only works if most of us avoid things locally and go with the best advertising campaign, never too late to change.

The way the US was constructed is very interesting, it can be exploited but not if we pay better attention. What was the quote, look after the pennies the dollars take care of themselves or something like that? True of money and also decisions, everyone pays attention to the big ones but it is the little ones that add up to big ones.

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

I like coalitions. They keep each other party other in check.

 

[Buzz Rules]

I like coalitions. They keep each other party other in check.

Congress is more functional than the UK's parliament in my opinion. We may have a 2 party system (in addition to minor parties plus independents), but at least they don't have to form a coalition in order to start a functional governmental session. Besides the speakership vote, very little holds up government functions unless something is holding that up purposely.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Congress is more functional than the UK's parliament in my opinion. We may have a 2 party system (in addition to minor parties plus independents), but at least they don't have to form a coalition in order to start a functional governmental session. Besides the speakership vote, very little holds up government functions unless something is holding that up purposely.

Yes we get it. USA is perfect. It has all the opportunities. Health care is best. Blah blah blah.

 

[Buzz Rules]

Yes we get it. USA is perfect. It has all the opportunities. Health care is best. Blah blah blah.

Not saying that at all. Never said we are perfect and healthcare has never been the best, it's just what we have. Stop putting words in my mouth please.

 

[DCLMP]

Yes we get it. USA is perfect. It has all the opportunities. Health care is best. Blah blah blah.

You sound bitter or are you projecting? No one said that.

 

[Sanchez]

You sound bitter or are you projecting? No one said that.

The former.

 

[DCLMP]

Another thread with the usual cast of characters.

Happy belated Independence Day. I spent the holiday at Disneyland. Crowds were manageable, the weather was fantastic, the fireworks were great, and the park was full of happy patriotic people.

Hotel prices were actually very good due to no conventions this week. We stayed at the Westin. I highly recommend and if you have Marriot status even better. The club lounge is amazing. Great way to spend the 4th of July.

 

[sasywtch]

Thanks I didn’t know that. Have always heard that no other democratic countries have a similar system to the US electoral college. Will research further. Still, I think it is an antiquated and unfair system. In attempting to equalize the votes of smaller states, I believe it actually penalizes those of us in more populated states. Simply put, our votes are diluted and thus carry less weight. I know plenty of people who don’t bother to vote because they feel that their votes don’t count. That’s a shame.

Wouldn't that be the other way around? Why would people in Wyoming, Montana, etc bother to vote when it would be decided by CA, NY, FL and TX? We are 50 individual states with differing needs/wants and have an equal say to who is elected. The heavy populated states don't always know what's best for the rest of the country and those smaller states have just as much right as the larger states do.

 

[Beezle2]

I was building on what you said, not trying to contradict it. My apologies if I was unclear.

My bottom line, regardless of playing the dictionary game, is simple.
Any American from the continent of Africa, regardless of race, is African American.
Any American from the continent of Europe, regardless of race, is European American.
Any American from the continent of Asia, regardless of race, is Asian American.
And so on.

And the genesis of that was asking about what makes the USA so great and it was that an African-American immigrant came here and turned himself into the world's wealthiest man. That is all factually correct.

Ahh yes, yet another thrilling American boot strap story of success. Proving yet again that if your daddy is (checks notes) already wealthy from the labor of the poorest people on a continent, you too are just any other African American immigrant. America has really never been shy about embracing the already wealthy though have we. We are like a street corner hooker I swear.

 

[Communicore1991]

This isn't politics, it is a civics issue, a loaded one but a civics issue at the root.

I am a woman and think everyone should make their own choices just like Adam and Eve, however, there is a big misunderstanding about what happened that shouldn't snowball. It is easy to shoot the messenger, we should not.

The change in the laws had zero to do with the subject of womens healthcare and had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the States actually have the discretion to control healthcare in their own region headed by their own elected officials who actually have more power so that we remain a free people able to self govern. It is very dangerous to centralize power too much, that is the point of the ruling and others like it, the topic itself was not relevant and was immaterial, the Supreme Court rules on Constitutionality of the way laws are written not the topic at hand. The Supreme Court ruled this directive/law etc, like many others, was an over-reach, Supreme Court did not rule that an individual state could not adopt the laws exactly as they were written only that individual states had to do it one by one with a nod from the individual voters in that state, no more and no less. People who want things in a certain way in their own states need to get to it and get more involved, grab a sign, go protest old laws and pay attention to your leaders, make them change antiquated state laws if that is what is desired, this is not a bad thing we got too lazy IMO. It got way too easy for our rights to be trampled with a single persons nod, that is dangerous and how dictatorships happen. It is unfortunate that rules reverted back to pre 70s but that is a separate issue from whether or not it is a states domain. This was a ruling over domain, no more and no less and should be separated from the subject involved. Every state is free to enact things exactly as they were, every single state.

How you want things to go is politics, the rules about how you get there, civics.

This was very well stated. I understand why many Americans get upset when they see the news headlines but to me it really seems to be more a case of shooting the messenger. The Supreme Court is only interpreting the rules and laws as they exist today. They cannot legislate from the bench and enact new laws, that's the power and ability of the the legislative branch. If the American people don't like a certain Supreme Court interpretation of a law, then they need to ensure they elect representatives who will pass new bills that change the wording or add new protections or strike down old provisions or what have you.

I also blame the media quite a bit for dividing us and for giving the impression the Supreme Court has become too extreme in its rulings one way or another. Here's an interesting statistic about the most recent term of the Supreme Court: 50% of decisions were unanimous. 89% had at least one liberal justice in the majority, and 8% were a 6-3 split along "ideological lines" (5 of 58). 5 out of 58 is quite a low number but it appeared to be a MUCH larger impact because the media told us these cases were the more important ones. I don't know, I just feel like the media is a large factor in causing our country to become more divided than it ever has been, but when we look into the details, we find there's quite a bit of logic behind what happens in our government.

 

[sam_gordon]

Wouldn't that be the other way around? Why would people in Wyoming, Montana, etc bother to vote when it would be decided by CA, NY, FL and TX? We are 50 individual states with differing needs/wants and have an equal say to who is elected. The heavy populated states don't always know what's best for the rest of the country and those smaller states have just as much right as the larger states do.

On the flip side, there's really only a handful of states currently that decide who wins. I'm not sure what the best solution is. Maybe instead of a "winner take all" when it comes to a state's electors, doing a percentage? If a candidate gets 40% of the vote, then (s)he get 40% of the electors?

 

[LuvOrlando]

This was very well stated. I understand why many Americans get upset when they see the news headlines but to me it really seems to be more a case of shooting the messenger. The Supreme Court is only interpreting the rules and laws as they exist today. They cannot legislate from the bench and enact new laws, that's the power and ability of the the legislative branch. If the American people don't like a certain Supreme Court interpretation of a law, then they need to ensure they elect representatives who will pass new bills that change the wording or add new protections or strike down old provisions or what have you.

I also blame the media quite a bit for dividing us and for giving the impression the Supreme Court has become too extreme in its rulings one way or another. Here's an interesting statistic about the most recent term of the Supreme Court: 50% of decisions were unanimous. 89% had at least one liberal justice in the majority, and 8% were a 6-3 split along "ideological lines" (5 of 58). 5 out of 58 is quite a low number but it appeared to be a MUCH larger impact because the media told us these cases were the more important ones. I don't know, I just feel like the media is a large factor in causing our country to become more divided than it ever has been, but when we look into the details, we find there's quite a bit of logic behind what happens in our government.

Again Civics, only words, I'm only talking meanings in an Anthropological Social Science observer sort of way:

I think a giant problem is the ubiquitous use of the words Consrevative and Liberal by the media and people in general. In the context of the Judiciary Branch it does not seem to mean the same thing as it does with everyday issues & the consistent use despite dissonance makes a big mess.

In the context of judges the words seem to take on different meanings where Conservative means, literally, to conserve the Constitution in its original spirit or as originally intended, and the term Liberal means to stretch the meaning, what COULD it mean. This is not at all what the terms mean in everyday use where the words are used to convey deeply held personal convictions about things like belief systems, identity and religion and that is a big problem. We could really use some different words, less loaded words would be a nice change I think.

 

[Neapolitan Ice Cream]

Congress is more functional than the UK's parliament in my opinion. We may have a 2 party system (in addition to minor parties plus independents), but at least they don't have to form a coalition in order to start a functional governmental session. Besides the speakership vote, very little holds up government functions unless something is holding that up purposely.

TBH, I'm of the opposite opinion. First Past The Post isn't ideal, but it gives smaller parties a better chance. I mean, I couldn't imagine living in a two party system. Here we have Labour and the Conservatives, the bigger two, then the Liberal Democrats (about 15% of the vote), the Greens, who control my constituency, Reform, BNP, UKIP and so on.

 

[SirDuff]

On the flip side, there's really only a handful of states currently that decide who wins. I'm not sure what the best solution is. Maybe instead of a "winner take all" when it comes to a state's electors, doing a percentage? If a candidate gets 40% of the vote, then (s)he get 40% of the electors?

I thought that some states already did this? Or something like it? Or I could be totally misremembering reading something.

 

[BrianL]

I thought that some states already did this? Or something like it? Or I could be totally misremembering reading something.

There are two states I believe who split their electors, Maine and Nebraska. I think it's a good model.

 

[Moliphino]

I was building on what you said, not trying to contradict it. My apologies if I was unclear.

My bottom line, regardless of playing the dictionary game, is simple.
Any American from the continent of Africa, regardless of race, is African American.
Any American from the continent of Europe, regardless of race, is European American.
Any American from the continent of Asia, regardless of race, is Asian American.
And so on.

And the genesis of that was asking about what makes the USA so great and it was that an African-American immigrant came here and turned himself into the world's wealthiest man. That is all factually correct.

If you're just looking at the words, sure. But that's not how it's actually used.

it's disingenuous to pretend that "African-American" has only geographical implications
technically Elon Musk is a white South African with Canadian and South African citizenship by birth, and US citizenship by immigration

THIS