So it’s ten days until the election now, and I cannot wait until this nightmare is over. Talk about it, or whatever else you want to talk about. No trolls, MRAs, Trumpkins, etc.
Categories
Ten Days Now: Election, etc Open Thread
@Scildfreja
Ours didn’t used to be (directly) elected either. Only changed ~100 years ago. Understandable goof 🙂
Why thank you, I try to be an understandable goof. Inscrutable goofs aren’t nearly as fun.
I cannot tell you how I wish the House was going to flip.
Old MacDonald had a farm,
Ee eye ee eye oh.
And on that farm he had a Trump,
Ee eye ee eye oh.
With a cuck-cuck here and a cuck-cuck there,
Here a cuck, there a cuck, everywhere a cuck-cuck,
Old MacDonald had a farm,
Ee eye ee eye oh.
@Schildfreja: one of the more interesting aspects of US constitutional history is that in the Constitution, the senate was appointed by the state governors.
The basic idea was for the US to have a lower house (the house of representatives) which would be directly beholden to the masses, and an upper house (the senate) which would be insulated from the vagaries of mass politics and be free to take the long-view. Of course, the constitution was written before we in the US developed political parties (and many of it’s writers were convinced that political parties, or ‘factionalism’, as they called it, would be the death of democracy), so there was real concern that our congress would degenerate into something of a popularity contest.
Also, as (most of) the people who wrote the constitution were ex-Englishmen, they were drawing inspiration from the English parliament with it’s house of lords and house of commons. And, they may have been drawing inspiration as well from the Roman Republic, where the Senate was the oligarchical aspect of their government. Of course, in our democracy, it would be inappropriate for senate seats to be inherited, so they decided to have them appointed instead.
I’m not actually sure at what point the Senate became elected, or even why. Anyone else know more?
@Nick G: I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is the first time I’ve noticed your comments*. When I first started here, I said quite a few things that I had no idea were at all offensive. That is because before I ran across this site, I’d never heard of MGTOWs, MRA’s, the Alt-Right, or any of the other terrible people that David writes about. (I had heard of PUA’s, but I’d always assumed they were a group of sleezebags without any real influence). Therefore, I had no idea just how much the stuff I was saying sounded like the garbage those people spew.
The people here took the effort to educate me (which they didn’t have to do, and I’m grateful for it), and I’ve improved **, which means you can to. But to do that, you have to listen. The first step to knowledge is realizing you don’t already know everything.
On a lighter note, PoM just re-posted instructions for how to work in photos on the other thread. Would anyone be interested in Bearded Dragon pics?
*WWTH indicated above that you’ve posted troubling things before, but I haven’t noticed them. Just too busy.
**I still slip up, and various commentators, such as WWTH, Axecalibur, and Kupo are still willing to bat me on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper when I do (I really do appreciate that, by the way. That’s not meant as a plea for sympathy). I hope I’m improving, but no one is objective about themselves.
@joekster, that’s sort of how I figured the US Senate evolved. It’s the same idea as our own Senate. There’s an ongoing debate as to whether we should have elected senators right now, actually. Complicated stuff. And, sure, I like dragons!
Though you’re driving me absolutely batty over here, I gotta say. There’s no “h” in my name!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1c2OfAzDTI
:3
@Scildfreja: I’m so sorry! I’ve just been seeing it there.
@Joek
1913, Amendment XVII. It was a result of the corruption of the Gilded Age. Senators were so beholden to corporate interests they were known as ‘The Oil Senator’ or ‘That Rail Senator’. Then (well concurrently actually) the Progressive Era brought much needed political reforms including the truly secret ballot. I’m generally of the opinion that directly electing Senators is, if not a purely bad thing, not the best idea. Very understandable at the time tho
@Joekster
You are. 🙂
Edit: bearded dragon pics are welcome, but the other thread is probably best for them. ^o^
It’s okay, @joekster. My name is a bit of an obstacle course, so when people typo I don’t usually cause a fuss. You seem the sort who wants to be right, though, so I thought it was okay to mention. “Scild” is anglo-saxon for “shield”.
Scild… I like it.
Okay, I’m going to post some pics on the other thread. Hope this works.
@Axe
I’ve never really been sold on the idea that having Senators is a very good idea, myself.
I used to be involved with a pro-Palestinian group. I left because I noticed a huge amount of bias and unwillingness to appreciate the complexity of the problems (on the same level as the racist-as-hell Israeli uber-nationalists). There was a pretty strong consensus that Jewish people needed to give up their cultural identity and assimilate into the “normal” white population in North America and Europe. Plus there were a few “brocialist” types flirting with ideological syntheses of the extreme right and extreme left.
I’d be okay with dropping the senate and only having the house. But only if steps were taken to prevent gerrymandering. If the districts were drawn by a computer program that would set 1/3 Dem, 1/3 GOP and 1/3 swing districts, for example.
Personally, I think that the real problem with the US government is that it really wasn’t build with political parties in mind. The people who set it up imagined that every representative would be elected on that representative’s own merits, rather than what faction they belonged to or whose platform they endorsed. Heck, it was originally set up so that the Vice President was the runner up in the Presidential campaign.
I think its a great pity that it didn’t work out that way. It might have been much less polarized.
@Dali
Me either, but it’s tied to anachronistic State system, and that ain’t ever gonna change. Don’t get me wrong, massive booster of devolution and federalism. But who can look at Florida, NY, Cali, Nevada, the Pacific Northwest in general, etc and tell me these lines on the map make any sense?
Anyway, so long as we’re gonna have senators, having them be directly elected just makes them shittier House Reps. And overinflates the power of low pop states (which tend to be more conservative, ain’t that a kick in the nads). Worst part? The Senate is the only chamber the Dems have a chance at retaking this year due to gerrymandering 🙁
@WWTH
Shortest Split Line maybe? Or something more active and deliberate?
@WWTH
Sounds like a different kind of gerrymandering to me. I’d rather that the computer simply use the shortest split line method or some other mathematical formula, and let the parties worry about getting voters by actually, you know, having policy proposals and such.
@Joekster
There was never any chance that it was going to work out that way. The framers were foolishly optimistic on that front because they basically had only the vaguest clue of what they were doing; none of them were political scientists or indeed social scientists of any sort. I mean, to be fair, it’s not like anyone else in the 18th century was any better at it. Which is why I’d prefer a system that owed less to 18th century design. Nobody’d sail a ship built to 18th century spec, and I don’t fully grasp why so many Yanks are so obsessed with the idea that updating it is sacrilege. *
@Axe
Unfortunately, the Senate system itself does that, regardless of how they’re selected; it’s not like Brownback’s appointments would be any better than the assholes Kansas elected, frex. And if Snyder could appoint Michigan’s Senators, we’d have two more Rs and two less Ds in the Senate already.
*OK, that’s a lie. I know perfectly well why. It’s because they’re bigoted scumfucks, and the original constitution was written to keep down people who are poor, female, and most especially black or native. A considerable portion of white America objects to the changes that’ve made it marginally less bigoted, and really objects to any changes that might significantly impact structural racism, misogyny, and classism.
Weirwoodtreehugger: jeez, okay. Goodbye then. I was just wondering.
And no, I’m not very acquainted with all American racist ”dogwhistle” terms. I only know the ”I have a black friend” one, as I don’t live in the USA and don’t regularly debate racists or read their pieces.
Edit: I see now that I have a different name, that is because I forgot I used this one and thought I used ”Margot”.
Oh, and I didn’t know that Gert or Nick were (admitted) trolls. I said before that I dislike the name-calling.
@Shlimazl/Margot: As I said above, it’s quite understandable that someone who doesn’t swim in these waters might make mistakes.
Mature people learn from their mistakes.
Immature people retaliate when their mistakes are pointed out. Or try to dodge responsibility.
Edit: It’s hard when you see people pointing at issues in posts that you thought were harmless. Believe me, I know. It’s important to be able to move past that.
I think it was Einstein who said, ‘when I was a young man, my mind was a blunt instrument. However, I kept sticking it out at people, and they kept beating on it, until it became as sharp as a razor’.
I’ve always found that little gem helpful. Perhaps it will help you as well.
I would encourage you to stay. This community has much to teach.
Then maybe take our word for it that there was racist dogwhistling going on.
I didn’t ever say Nick was a troll, just someone I find snide and condescending and someone who has now taken to defending a troll.
Gert, however said right in this thread that he’s now going to troll because he doesn’t like the reception his bullshit gets here. He’s also the one who did the most name calling in this thread. Feel free to go back and read it. He called just about everyone a name. He called me a twat. So why were you scolding us?
I’m not saying you have to leave. I’m just saying that we are not nice to people who say nasty bigoted things. Women, particularly feminist women get a ton of gendered tone policing. We’re expected to be nice to men who hate us all the time. Assuming you’re female based on your username (and sorry if I’ve got that wrong) you’ve probably experienced this too. This is one of the few places where this tone policing doesn’t happen. This is a place where bigotry, including in dogwhistle form is just not tolerated. Troll take downs are part of the culture here and pleas to be nice someone who calls women twats and throws around anti-Semitic dogwhistles are not going to be taken well. I’m really not trying to be mean, but if insulting trolls is offensive to you, you’re better off leaving rather than trying to fight it because it’s just not going to change.
Update on the emails: The reports are now saying that the FBI hasn’t even looked at them because they don’t have a warrant yet.
I want to reiterate. Comey interjected himself into an active election process that was 10 days out over something that is probably jack-shit. He actually can’t even say that these emails are ones that Clinton failed to produce during the original investigation, because he doesn’t know what is in them. They could very well be duplicates of emails that Clinton handed over voluntarily months ago.
This is so far beyond a breach of ethics that I don’t even know what to call it. Even a lady on Fox was saying earlier today that the entire way Comey has handled this investigation has been irregular and seemingly calculated to convict Clinton in the court of public opinion since he doesn’t have anything to convict her in a court of law.
@Dali
You’re right 🙂
Also, I like how Brownback is the go to example for Republican, gubernatorial shittery. His is always the 1st name to come outta people’s mouths (or keyboards) in these conversations. He deserves it, but I bet Rick Scott’s glad someone’s taken the heat off him. And Snyder. And Walker. And Christie. And…
@PoM
Dems hate him for investigating her, Rs hate him for letting her off. He made an executive decision to try and tilt the election, assuming that he’d keep his job if he gave Trump the win. That’s my working theory anyway. Probably entirely wrong, but whatever
Okay 🙂
Plenty, yes. While I don’t debate racists, I do tend to debate a lot of sexists/misogynists/people I really don’t agree with and who lean to the manosphere. (or are full-on manospherian) They often have their own ways of trying to excuse saying bizarre or hateful things.
I think I can understand that, certain places need heavy moderation to keep a certain level of… ”quality” (otherwise you get a shit-ton of the same tired old very poor arguments, I’ve seen it happen before). On the other hand, I fear that it becomes too ”strict” for well-meaning people who haven’t read enough on it before or who lack the ability to really spot people’s ”undertones”. (in an American context, certain stuff is lost on me as I realise now. I tend to spot these things in my own language very well) But oh well, I said it before, I’m new here, so whatever.
No, I’m fine with people who mistreat others meeting consequences. There’re plenty of places online where they can go to insult people in racist or sexist ways. It just ”appeared” to me as though disagreeing people on certain subjects (aside from the bad behaviour) would be seen as trolls, per definition, which in some cases they are but in some cases they may not be. (as in: Clinton not being the Best Person Ever etc)
Thank you for replying to me, I hope I cleared up some stuff.