Jump to content
Toups

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Emmanuel Macron's party, La République en Marche, looks poised to take a majority in the National Assembly.  

La République en Marche is a political party that Macron started less than 2 years ago. 

 

Wonder what Theresa May thinks of this.:ph34r:

Speaking of Theresa May and the uncertainty in Great Britain, the British can take heart in one result of the disastrous results for the Conservatives, and UKIP (to some extent): Trump appears to be delaying his trip to the United Kingdom.

I guess Trump may not want to be associated with May and Nigel Farage because they aren't 'killers' right now.:ph34r:

"Aint it cool!" Broken Arrow

 

i think the party didn't exist a year ago. For someone like me who can't sign on to either party, there's hope something will emerge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rhinohide said:

"Aint it cool!" Broken Arrow

 

i think the party didn't exist a year ago. For someone like me who can't sign on to either party, there's hope something will emerge. 

 

According to what I've read Macron started the party 14 months ago. 

 

It's funny though that Macron, for all intents and purposes would be considered a Centrist politically- which the U.S. voters seem not to want to vote for, at this time. Both Obama and Bill Clinton were considered Centrists and got roundly criticized toward the end of their terms for policies that were 'too centrist'. Obama, in particular, was not considered lefty enough, when in fact, Obama never claimed liberal status.

 

Macron was to the right of the far left candidate, Melenchon, who the media often compared to Bernie Sanders. Everyone knows by now that Macron was much left of Le Pen, the right-wing candidate.

Although Le Pen fared better in the Presidential election (in the 1st round anyway), this time around in National Assembly elections both Le Pen's and Melenchon's parties fared quite poorly in vote totals so far, which is why, in spite of there being another round on Sunday, the totals already forecast a majority by Macron's party.

 

There are vast differences between the French and the U.S. electoral systems. France conducts more than one round and they don't have an Electoral College to contend with. France also tends to have much higher voter participation and the U.S. insists on curtailing voting to  a weekday, while France always holds their elections on the weekend to allow the largest amount of people to participate.

Also unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of voter suppression, which to my knowledge, France doesn't (in spite of its history of colonialism, racism, etc.).

France doesn't allow as much outside $$, if any, to enter into its elections. It's not cheap to mount a campaign but by comparison in the U.S., I doubt that anyone could launch a truly competitive brand-new political party in less than 2 years that ends up sweeping elections.

 

There would have to be many structural changes to how the U.S. conducts its elections before I could be confident that a similar phenomenon could happen.  

I'm not saying its impossible, I'm saying that many structural changes would need to be made for it to happen. JMO.

 

 

Edited by DramatistDreamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

According to what I've read Macron started the party 14 months ago. 

 

It's funny though that Macron, for all intents and purposes would be considered a Centrist politically- which the U.S. voters seem not to want to vote for, at this time. Both Obama and Bill Clinton were considered Centrists and got roundly criticized toward the end of their terms for policies that were 'too centrist'. Obama, in particular, was not considered lefty enough, when in fact, Obama never claimed liberal status.

 

Macron was to the right of the far left candidate, Melenchon, who the media often compared to Bernie Sanders. Everyone knows by now that Macron was much left of Le Pen, the right-wing candidate.

Although Le Pen fared better in the Presidential election (in the 1st round anyway), this time around in National Assembly elections both Le Pen's and Melenchon's parties fared quite poorly in vote totals so far, which is why, in spite of there being another round on Sunday, the totals already forecast a majority by Macron's party.

 

There are vast differences between the French and the U.S. electoral systems. France conducts more than one round and they don't have an Electoral College to contend with. France also tends to have much higher voter participation and the U.S. insists on curtailing voting to  a weekday, while France always holds their elections on the weekend to allow the largest amount of people to participate.

Also unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of voter suppression, which to my knowledge, France doesn't (in spite of its history of colonialism, racism, etc.).

France doesn't allow as much outside $$, if any, to enter into its elections. It's not cheap to mount a campaign but I doubt that anyone could launch a truly competitive brand-new political party in less than 2 years that ends up sweeping elections.

 

There would have to be many structural changes to how the U.S. conducts its elections before I could be confident that a similar phenomenon could happen.  

I'm not saying its impossible, I'm saying that many structural changes would need to be made for it to happen. JMO.

 

 

Yes!  The system is rigged. But I see where the courts continue to rule against Wisconsin where 45 won by 22,000 votes and 200,000 votes were suppressed. Celebrate victories. But never rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At about the 24 minute mark there is a VERY interesting reveal. We all saw the news video about the woman who pulled her teenage son out of the riots in Baltimore after Freddie Gray died. I never heard what happened next. Did you?  

 

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/undisclosed/id984987791?mt=2#episodeGuid=tag%3Aaudioboom.com%2C2017-06-12%3A%2Fposts%2F6009053

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 7:07 AM, DRW50 said:

I'm glad Jimmy is still doing well.

 

Illinois is a mess:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/10/illinois-debt-deficit-budget-election-239384

As a long time Illinois resident, I can tell you while our Governor is a disaster, the problems in the state are a combination of a lot of factors contributed to equally by both parties.

 

Whenever I read people bitching about neoliberals and the Clinton's and Obama and their democratic party, people should come to Illinois to see how real old time democratic politics work and what real "rigging" and corruption looks like. This is a state so engrained but for once I appreciate the old timers here otherwise we'd be on our way to a non union right to work state as I speak.

 

I read about freezing property taxes here and all the other tax breaks. We don't have a progressive tax structure in Illinois, we have a flat tax where everyone pays the same, corporations pay little, and the Governor has yet to introduce his budget plan and it's been over 2 years.

 

What is sad is in a state that is practically bankrupt we will likely have the most expensive Governor's race between 2 billionaires. I'd even welcome Chris Kennedy as Governor over either billionaire. Sadly we have some viable democrats who will never have a chance to the money imbalance unless that balance can be countered by volunteers.

 

Whoever steps in will have a big job. The previous pension reform backed by our prior Governor(a well intentioned but not strong democrat) was ruled unconstitutional due to guarantees in the state constitution. Even our chief justice here in Illinois scolded both the dems and repubs for rolling back the temporary tax hike as it could have been used for part of the pension shortfall.

Edited by JaneAusten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rhinohide said:

Yes!  The system is rigged. But I see where the courts continue to rule against Wisconsin where 45 won by 22,000 votes and 200,000 votes were suppressed. Celebrate victories. But never rest. 

 

But the system has been this way for hundreds of years, it's not just now as some would claim.

 

Still, there have been some very important changes. There just isn't the same level of corruption as when there were poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses and open voter intimidation or when Blacks and women were flat-out not allowed to vote.

 

I do hope that elected officials who claim the system is rigged would not just say this for political points but constructively work to make actual change and fix the flaws in our electoral system.

 

Jimmy Carter began a well respected organization that monitors votes for fair elections worldwide.  And then there is Eric Holder's emerging project, that Obama has joined to deal with gerrymandering and electoral red-lining.  These aren't sexy talking points but they can foster substantive change that improves the voting/election process.

Edited by DramatistDreamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

But the system has been this way for hundreds of years, it's not just now as some would claim.

 

Still, there have been some very important changes. There just isn't the same level of corruption as when there were poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses and open voter intimidation or when Blacks and women were flat-out not allowed to vote.

 

I do hope that elected officials who claim the system is rigged would not just say this for political points but constructively work to make actual change and fix the flaws in our electoral system.

 

Jimmy Carter began a well respected organization that monitors votes for fair elections worldwide.  And then there is Eric Holder's emerging project, that Obama has joined to deal with gerrymandering and electoral red-lining.  These aren't sexy talking points but they can foster substantive change that improves the voting/election process.

Very true. But as a southern gal, who voted GOP until W was elected, it's still stunning to me. I'm like "Seriously?"  Sorry. I'm a 60 year old who's catching up. I know that's privilege. Just figuring it out. Trying to be better. 

Edited by rhinohide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

But the system has been this way for hundreds of years, it's not just now as some would claim.

 

Still, there have been some very important changes. There just isn't the same level of corruption as when there were poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses and open voter intimidation or when Blacks and women were flat-out not allowed to vote.

 

I do hope that elected officials who claim the system is rigged would not just say this for political points but constructively work to make actual change and fix the flaws in our electoral system.

 

Jimmy Carter began a well respected organization that monitors votes for fair elections worldwide.  And then there is Eric Holder's emerging project, that Obama has joined to deal with gerrymandering and electoral red-lining.  These aren't sexy talking points but they can foster substantive change that improves the voting/election process.

The rigging talk kind of infuriates me especially when I hear that closed primaries are "rigging" and it's the DNC who is at fault. That is not to say there are not problems with the process, but the states set the rules not the DNC or RNC. People were upset when Obama ran and they ended up motoring along, but honestly do people just not care after their candidate wins and let it sit? Because no one did anything in any state after Obama won. Caucuses are much more problematic as they disenfranchise more voters, and I have some friends in Iowa who have been trying for a few years to work on getting the caucuses changed to primaries. It is a very slow process.

 

Gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter ID laws are much more destructive and work actively to disenfranchise voters. Convicted felons in many states still cannot vote, and if you served your time, shouldn't your voting rights also be restored?

 

We have open primaries in Illinois and someone can come here and vote and tell me how great being able to vote in any primary regardless of party affiliation is. Illinois certainly is no shining example of why it would be better. We have our share of certain voting blocks who have complained about it but I don't see it encouraging more younger people to vote. In fact it seems that less younger people vote than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, rhinohide said:

Very true. But as a southern gal, who voted GOP until W was elected, it's still stunning to me. I'm like "Seriously?"  Sorry. I'm a 60 year old who's catching up. I know that's privilege. Just figuring it out. Trying to be better. 

 

That's all any of us can do is truly try to be better. I wish more people were honest about this. 

 

18 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:

The rigging talk kind of infuriates me especially when I hear that closed primaries are "rigging" and it's the DNC who is at fault. That is not to say there are not problems with the process, but the states set the rules not the DNC or RNC. People were upset when Obama ran and they ended up motoring along, but honestly do people just not care after their candidate wins and let it sit? Because no one did anything in any state after Obama won. Caucuses are much more problematic as they disenfranchise more voters, and I have some friends in Iowa who have been trying for a few years to work on getting the caucuses changed to primaries. It is a very slow process.

 

Gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter ID laws are much more destructive and work actively to disenfranchise voters. Convicted felons in many states still cannot vote, and if you served your time, shouldn't your voting rights also be restored?

 

 

2016 was the first year that the effects of all those voter IDs were put into action in an actual general/presidential election.

I don't think people truly have a sense of how much damage those voter ID laws had in the 2016 election.  

 

In most countries, the poor are active, engaged voters. The U.S. has historically low voter turnout because there are large sections of its populace that are marginalized and end up unable to participate in the voting process.

Whether they are ex-cons who have not had their voting rights restored or cannot get time off  from work to get to the polls before they close on a weekday.

Many people fail to see what's the big deal about getting the ID but there are elderly Blacks in the South who don't own their birth certificate because they were never issued one and are prevented from getting acceptable ID because of it. There are people, for various reasons, who may be unable to physically make it to the DMV or low-income & working poor who cannot afford the cost of keeping up their ID so they let it lapse.  Even people who switch addresses right before primaries and the information doesn't always get to the correct polling place.

Then there is the amount of misinformation that is given to prospective voters (whether intentional or not) that discourages some from pursuing a course of action that would allow them to vote.

The voter ID laws have made many existing issues that much worse and caused many not to vote this time around.

Edited by DramatistDreamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JaneAusten said:

The rigging talk kind of infuriates me especially when I hear that closed primaries are "rigging" and it's the DNC who is at fault. That is not to say there are not problems with the process, but the states set the rules not the DNC or RNC. People were upset when Obama ran and they ended up motoring along, but honestly do people just not care after their candidate wins and let it sit? Because no one did anything in any state after Obama won. Caucuses are much more problematic as they disenfranchise more voters, and I have some friends in Iowa who have been trying for a few years to work on getting the caucuses changed to primaries. It is a very slow process.

 

Gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter ID laws are much more destructive and work actively to disenfranchise voters. Convicted felons in many states still cannot vote, and if you served your time, shouldn't your voting rights also be restored?

 

We have open primaries in Illinois and someone can come here and vote and tell me how great being able to vote in any primary regardless of party affiliation is. Illinois certainly is no shining example of why it would be better. We have our share of certain voting blocks who have complained about it but I don't see it encouraging more younger people to vote. In fact it seems that less younger people vote than ever.

I'm really sorry you feel that way. I include gerrymandering in the general election with the partisan mechanics of the primaries. It's not that different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rhinohide said:

I'm really sorry you feel that way. I include gerrymandering in the general election with the partisan mechanics of the primaries. It's not that different. 

It's not all about how I feel. Much of it's based on fact. We have had open primaries in Illinois for years. It hasn't changed anything in terms of voter turnout and more people being enthused about voting or not feeling disenfranchised, especially the voting block that still complains about it the most. These same voters don't vote midterms, local elections, or even state races as widely. Our governor's election in Illinois in 2014 had a 28% statewide turnout which is criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

The rigging talk kind of infuriates me especially when I hear that closed primaries are "rigging" and it's the DNC who is at fault. That is not to say there are not problems with the process, but the states set the rules not the DNC or RNC. People were upset when Obama ran and they ended up motoring along, but honestly do people just not care after their candidate wins and let it sit? Because no one did anything in any state after Obama won. Caucuses are much more problematic as they disenfranchise more voters, and I have some friends in Iowa who have been trying for a few years to work on getting the caucuses changed to primaries. It is a very slow process.

 

Gerrymandering, voter suppression, voter ID laws are much more destructive and work actively to disenfranchise voters. Convicted felons in many states still cannot vote, and if you served your time, shouldn't your voting rights also be restored?

 

We have open primaries in Illinois and someone can come here and vote and tell me how great being able to vote in any primary regardless of party affiliation is. Illinois certainly is no shining example of why it would be better. We have our share of certain voting blocks who have complained about it but I don't see it encouraging more younger people to vote. In fact it seems that less younger people vote than ever.

 

Calling closed primaries rigging or voter suppression is another attempt by the far left to minimize the concerns of minorities. Apparently the clarion call from BernieCon was that the revolution should work to destabilize the primary process. I suspect that's going to work out just like everything else that involves more than hashtag activism. We have open primaries in Ohio (which I've already sent a email to the state party about closing). I know someone who crossed over to vote in the Republican party to vote for Trump because he would be easier to beat than Kasich. That kind of game playing was in existence long before Bernie and I've always hated it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Roman said:


is Trump the most hated person in the western hemisphere?

 

Yes.  Much to Carrot Top's relief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...