Monica Lewinsky penned on op-ed Monday calling for a series of constitutional amendments, including age limits for elected officials and a ban on presidential self-pardons. In a piece in Vanity Fai…
That’s not necessary, obviously Americans would never elect a criminal for President.
This was probably the general thinking before everything went batshit crazy among Republicans.
This was probably the general thinking before everything went batshit crazy among Republicans realized they could appeal to their voters by going mask-off.
That’s true to some degree, but they were not all always crazy.
Although I disagree with for instance McCain (deceased) and Mitt Romney may wear magic underwear, so he obviously is a bit crazy, they were not completely insane. Like numerousall of the MAGA crowd.
I wonder how much Republican politicians actually believe in the shit they say vs how much of it is just to please the small-minded bigots for votes. They seem to oppose the left on every single issue, no matter how trivial.
One of the major reasons for the electoral college is because many of the founding fathers thought the people were too stupid to not elect a populist (like Trump) and that Congress should choose the president, but the other side thought it gave Congress too much power. So they compromised with the electoral system.
It’s been well known since day 1 that the people could do a very bad job choosing the president. The problem is that the EC has been so watered down at this point that the only purpose it currently serves is to create a situation where we’re under the tyranny of the minority. And, ironically, it gave us trump and might do so again.
only purpose it currently serves is to create a situation where we’re under the tyranny of the minority.
Although optimistically a lot of the way the government was designed is to prevent exactly the type of person that Trump is becoming president, tyranny of the minority is part of the system. EC and the senate are definitely designed in a way to prevent the unwashed masses from gaining too much power, and keep in mind when the framers were designing this we’re talking only about white land-owning men. Our government’s design is progressive for its time compared to a literal monarchy, but it’s still clearly designed with a caste system in mind.
Most electors are bound by state law to vote a certain way, and the scotus has upheld this practice, so I would argue that they really make no decision at all.
Are you talking about federal presidential election or the election to become candidate for the party?
Because the party election system is 100% decided by the party AFAIK.
i mean he did also lose the popular vote. that was a pretty significant thing that happened. like i understand where you’re coming from here but he very much did lose the popular vote.
Criminals shouldn’t be barred from running though. In fact, there’s precedent for people running for President from prison, and it should be allowed in order to make sure that the state doesn’t imprison people from jailing political opponents.
Look up Eugene V. Debs. And yes, this is an opinion, not a legal question. We’re talking about which laws should govern who gets to run for President, and I feel like they’re already too restrictive as they are.
While not a legal argument, look up Alexei Navalny in Russia. He’s been the leader of the country’s opposition party for some time and beyond his attempted assassination, he’s become a political prisoner and has been trying to maintain political status from gaol. He absolutely should be able to run and would objectively be a better president for the average Russian than Putin is.
While it’s not an American example, it’s a general example of why people who are technically criminals (in his case, a political prisoner) should be able to run for office - even from gaol.
It’s one of those situations where a protection needs to be in place that, sadly, can also be abused by bad actors.
What’s concerning is the Dem party leadership is still operating under that assumption…
They’re either that out of touch with American politics, or they’d rather risk the country than risk themselves being held accountable in a hypothetical future.
Either way, I think that’s disqualifing, we need people willing to actually fix shit rather than just attempt to not let things get worse and then use that as a threat to keep getting elected.
We tried that with Obama’s SC seat, using it as a fear motivator to convince people Hillary should be president. The party lost that bet, but didn’t learn a single fucking thing. They just want to double down on the strategy.
If they pass laws limiting the damage a republican president can cause, they’re hurting their own chances since lots of people vote for shitty D candidates only to prevent a Republican from winning.
And sure, there are primary elections. But both parties have went on the legal record saying those are nonbinding and they can nominate anyone they want for the general.
If they pass laws limiting the damage a republican president can cause, they’re hurting their own chances
I’m not quite sure I follow, and I disagree that making laws that protect democracy better would hurt them in an election.
And sure, there are primary elections. But both parties have went on the legal record saying those are nonbinding and they can nominate anyone they want for the general.
Yes, it was absolutely outrageous how they claimed they could choose Hillary, even if Bernie won.
republicans blocked a supreme court pick of obamas for over a year in congress so that trump could pick it. Previously even some liberals like to have shared power were one party controlled some and the other controlled the other but with the current republican party platform of batshit crazy and no honor Im not sure if anyone still sees that as a viable idea.
No it doesn’t make sense how democrats hurt their own chances because people vote for shitty candidates. I’d say it’s even somewhat self contradictory.
It’s not. Which is why Republicans still manage to become president…
But you’re thinking about what would be best for the country. Unfortunately a lot of democratic politicians are more concerned about the amount of political donations they will receive.
And the wealthy have a lot of money to give, but don’t give it to people willing to substantially raise their taxes
That’s the rub. The people running the political parties care more about getting elected than helping America once elected.
So they’re going to keep picking their donors over the American public, and the worse Republicans are about it, the worse Dems can be while still (legitimately) being the lesser evil.
That’s why they hate progressives so much. They’re raising the bar and presenting an option that’s better than:
Well, it’s us or a Republican, so you have to vote for us.
That’s not necessary, obviously Americans would never elect a criminal for President.
This was probably the general thinking before everything went batshit crazy among Republicans.
That’s true to some degree, but they were not all always crazy.
Although I disagree with for instance McCain (deceased) and Mitt Romney may wear magic underwear, so he obviously is a bit crazy, they were not completely insane. Like
numerousall of the MAGA crowd.I wonder how much Republican politicians actually believe in the shit they say vs how much of it is just to please the small-minded bigots for votes. They seem to oppose the left on every single issue, no matter how trivial.
One of the major reasons for the electoral college is because many of the founding fathers thought the people were too stupid to not elect a populist (like Trump) and that Congress should choose the president, but the other side thought it gave Congress too much power. So they compromised with the electoral system.
It’s been well known since day 1 that the people could do a very bad job choosing the president. The problem is that the EC has been so watered down at this point that the only purpose it currently serves is to create a situation where we’re under the tyranny of the minority. And, ironically, it gave us trump and might do so again.
Although optimistically a lot of the way the government was designed is to prevent exactly the type of person that Trump is becoming president, tyranny of the minority is part of the system. EC and the senate are definitely designed in a way to prevent the unwashed masses from gaining too much power, and keep in mind when the framers were designing this we’re talking only about white land-owning men. Our government’s design is progressive for its time compared to a literal monarchy, but it’s still clearly designed with a caste system in mind.
Corruption makes it more likely to be the Electoral collage that makes a stupid decision.
Most electors are bound by state law to vote a certain way, and the scotus has upheld this practice, so I would argue that they really make no decision at all.
Are you talking about federal presidential election or the election to become candidate for the party?
Because the party election system is 100% decided by the party AFAIK.
i mean he did also lose the popular vote. that was a pretty significant thing that happened. like i understand where you’re coming from here but he very much did lose the popular vote.
Which is exactly why I said it was ironic that it gave him to us instead of protecting us from him.
Criminals shouldn’t be barred from running though. In fact, there’s precedent for people running for President from prison, and it should be allowed in order to make sure that the state doesn’t imprison people from jailing political opponents.
deleted by creator
Look up Eugene V. Debs. And yes, this is an opinion, not a legal question. We’re talking about which laws should govern who gets to run for President, and I feel like they’re already too restrictive as they are.
While not a legal argument, look up Alexei Navalny in Russia. He’s been the leader of the country’s opposition party for some time and beyond his attempted assassination, he’s become a political prisoner and has been trying to maintain political status from gaol. He absolutely should be able to run and would objectively be a better president for the average Russian than Putin is.
While it’s not an American example, it’s a general example of why people who are technically criminals (in his case, a political prisoner) should be able to run for office - even from gaol.
It’s one of those situations where a protection needs to be in place that, sadly, can also be abused by bad actors.
What’s concerning is the Dem party leadership is still operating under that assumption…
They’re either that out of touch with American politics, or they’d rather risk the country than risk themselves being held accountable in a hypothetical future.
Either way, I think that’s disqualifing, we need people willing to actually fix shit rather than just attempt to not let things get worse and then use that as a threat to keep getting elected.
We tried that with Obama’s SC seat, using it as a fear motivator to convince people Hillary should be president. The party lost that bet, but didn’t learn a single fucking thing. They just want to double down on the strategy.
If they pass laws limiting the damage a republican president can cause, they’re hurting their own chances since lots of people vote for shitty D candidates only to prevent a Republican from winning.
And sure, there are primary elections. But both parties have went on the legal record saying those are nonbinding and they can nominate anyone they want for the general.
Very good points.
I don’t know what that is.
I’m not quite sure I follow, and I disagree that making laws that protect democracy better would hurt them in an election.
Yes, it was absolutely outrageous how they claimed they could choose Hillary, even if Bernie won.
republicans blocked a supreme court pick of obamas for over a year in congress so that trump could pick it. Previously even some liberals like to have shared power were one party controlled some and the other controlled the other but with the current republican party platform of batshit crazy and no honor Im not sure if anyone still sees that as a viable idea.
I started to type a reply explaining that, then I realized I already did that in the comment you’re replying to in the simplest way I could think of…
Like, I’d legitimately just be typing the parts you didn’t quote.
No it doesn’t make sense how democrats hurt their own chances because people vote for shitty candidates. I’d say it’s even somewhat self contradictory.
…
Dems only need to be slightly better than the Republican to get votes.
If you raise the bar for Republicans, it raises the bar for Dems.
It might even have to come to the point where they’d need to disagree on how much taxes the wealthy and billion dollar corporations have to pay.
So the worse the Republicans are, the happier the dem party can keep their donors. Which means more donations to Democrats.
I can’t think of a simpler way to explain that, maybe someone else can help if it still doesn’t make sense
OK i get what you mean, but I don’t see that as a winning strategy.
It’s not. Which is why Republicans still manage to become president…
But you’re thinking about what would be best for the country. Unfortunately a lot of democratic politicians are more concerned about the amount of political donations they will receive.
And the wealthy have a lot of money to give, but don’t give it to people willing to substantially raise their taxes
That’s the rub. The people running the political parties care more about getting elected than helping America once elected.
So they’re going to keep picking their donors over the American public, and the worse Republicans are about it, the worse Dems can be while still (legitimately) being the lesser evil.
That’s why they hate progressives so much. They’re raising the bar and presenting an option that’s better than: