Thread for obviously newsworthy stuff

[Kidlicious]

You're an idiot who doesn't know a single thing.

No dip****. I know that it wasn't constitutional to hire a special prosecutor and not give him a defined scope of investigation because the President fired a piece of **** corrupt sleazeball.

[Dinner]

You're an idiot who doesn't know a single thing.

[Kidlicious]

Mueller has been trying to interview Trump on the record for almost half a year now but Trump keeps stalling and delaying. While in public Trump falsely claims this very short, almost record speed special investigation is some how going on too long (it has been just one year so far). Gee, maybe if Trump would stop stalling and start cooperating with law enforcement then things would move more quickly? :rolleyes

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/polit...ler/index.html

Mueller was appointed because Trump fired Comey. We are all horrified that he was ever the Director of the FBI, and Rosenstein and Mueller know Comey better than the rest of us. Comey misled the President. We know that for sure. Firing him was justified just for that. But we both know that there is more to it than that. Maybe that's why you tell people to commit suicide.

[Dinner]

Mueller has been trying to interview Trump on the record for almost half a year now but Trump keeps stalling and delaying. While in public Trump falsely claims this very short, almost record speed special investigation is some how going on too long (it has been just one year so far). Gee, maybe if Trump would stop stalling and start cooperating with law enforcement then things would move more quickly? :rolleyes

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/politics/trump-legal-team-january-2018-interview-robert-mueller/index.html

[Kidlicious]

The question is whether it makes sense to preserve the mechanisms of the framers for eternity.
The world has changed in ways that the framers could not forrsee.

We now have womens suffrage, blacks and indians being full members of society (including voting rights).
All of the european countries, who were monarchies at the foundation of the republic, now are full fledged democracies.
Messages which, during the time of the founders, would take days or even weeks to transfer from one edge of the USA to the other, can now transmitted via seconds.

Likewise religiosity has changed a lot and we have more religious pluralism than before.

I am sure that the founders couldn't, in their wildest dreams, imagine a world like this.

Therefore we cannot be sure which specifics the framers would choose if they would have to draft the important mechanisms of their state with the knowledge of today.

The same, btw. can be said for the 2nd amendment.
No matter whether the framers thought, that only militia members should be allowed to possess firearms, or whether they intended every single citizen to possess firearms, one fact remains:
The founders grew up in a time where you had single shot, or at the most, double shot pistols and rifles, which would take several minutes to reload.

There were no indications of half automatic weapons in the near or far future of the founders and likely no indications of equipment (i.e. bump stocks) that could turn said half-automatic weapons in full automatic weapons. So, a criminal in legal possession of firearms during the time of the founders was able to kill, at most 1-2 people ... maybe 4 if he had 2 double barrel pistols. Nowadays a single individual in possession of legal firearms is able to wound or kill 100s of people.

Likewise, unlike during the time of the founders, á well regulated militia with legal firearms is improbable to defeat a regular army armed with tanks, jets, drones, artillery and maybe even atomic weapons.

So, I think the 2nd amendment is antiquated as well and it is doubtful to me that the founders, with the knowledge of today, would put the 2nd amendment into the constitution ... especially not in the ambiguous form that is known today

Not much to say in response. The framers believed in much lower taxes, even less power in the executive branch. They would be absolutely horified by the lack of judicial restraint. They would be outraged by the anti-intellectualism on our university campuses and the lack of proper moral education. Don't even get me started on the deep state and the fake news.

[Proteus_MST]

More democratic is not necessarily better. And the Senate will always be more likely to be Republican majority than the President. The framers did not like democracy as much as you, and they would not like the Democrats for sure.

The question is whether it makes sense to preserve the mechanisms of the framers for eternity.
The world has changed in ways that the framers could not forrsee.

We now have womens suffrage, blacks and indians being full members of society (including voting rights).
All of the european countries, who were monarchies at the foundation of the republic, now are full fledged democracies.
Messages which, during the time of the founders, would take days or even weeks to transfer from one edge of the USA to the other, can now transmitted via seconds.

Likewise religiosity has changed a lot and we have more religious pluralism than before.

I am sure that the founders couldn't, in their wildest dreams, imagine a world like this.

Therefore we cannot be sure which specifics the framers would choose if they would have to draft the important mechanisms of their state with the knowledge of today.

The same, btw. can be said for the 2nd amendment.
No matter whether the framers thought, that only militia members should be allowed to possess firearms, or whether they intended every single citizen to possess firearms, one fact remains:
The founders grew up in a time where you had single shot, or at the most, double shot pistols and rifles, which would take several minutes to reload.

There were no indications of half automatic weapons in the near or far future of the founders and likely no indications of equipment (i.e. bump stocks) that could turn said half-automatic weapons in full automatic weapons. So, a criminal in legal possession of firearms during the time of the founders was able to kill, at most 1-2 people ... maybe 4 if he had 2 double barrel pistols. Nowadays a single individual in possession of legal firearms is able to wound or kill 100s of people.

Likewise, unlike during the time of the founders, á well regulated militia with legal firearms is improbable to defeat a regular army armed with tanks, jets, drones, artillery and maybe even atomic weapons.

So, I think the 2nd amendment is antiquated as well and it is doubtful to me that the founders, with the knowledge of today, would put the 2nd amendment into the constitution ... especially not in the ambiguous form that is known today

[Kidlicious]

In a way, yes.
On the other hand the 2 senators are voted for separately, in contrast to the "winner takes all" rule that most states have regarding their electorate.
So there is a chance that, in a closely split voting population of a state you may get one senator who belongs to the democrats and one senator who belongs to the republicans.

Whereas in presidential election in most states it is all or nothing ... even a highly split outcome with just 50.5% for Republicans and 49.5 % for the Democrats will result in the Republicans getting 100% of the electors of the state.

Abandoning the "Winner takes all"-rule in all states would already be a good first step, to make the presidential election more democratic

More democratic is not necessarily better. And the Senate will always be more likely to be Republican majority than the President. The framers did not like democracy as much as you, and they would not like the Democrats for sure.

[Proteus_MST]

Do you also have a problem with our Senate, because each state gets 2 senators.

In a way, yes.
On the other hand the 2 senators are voted for separately, in contrast to the "winner takes all" rule that most states have regarding their electorate.
So there is a chance that, in a closely split voting population of a state you may get one senator who belongs to the democrats and one senator who belongs to the republicans.

Whereas in presidential election in most states it is all or nothing ... even a highly split outcome with just 50.5% for Republicans and 49.5 % for the Democrats will result in the Republicans getting 100% of the electors of the state.

Abandoning the "Winner takes all"-rule in all states would already be a good first step, to make the presidential election more democratic

[Uncle Sparky]

[Kidlicious]

They surely were.
The united states initially had no parties and the initial idea behind the electorate was, that the uneducated people should vote someone educated out of their region, who would represent the regions interests when suggesting a presidential candidate and voting for him (together with all other electors from the electorate)

The electorate system began to make less and less sense, when parties were inriduced into the US governmental system and things like "winner takes all electors of the state" and "electors being bound to vote for the elector of their party".

Nowadays the electorate system is simply an undemocratic relic of times long gone

Do you also have a problem with our Senate, because each state gets 2 senators.

[Aeson]

Trump has canceled the North Korea summit with Kim:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/24/politics/trump-north-korea/index.html

Guess Trump is afraid that Kim will turn out to be intellectually superior compared to himself
(which, I guess, will be very likely)

Trump was spooked when he found out what Kim does to slimey orangish stuff ...

[Proteus_MST]

The framers were biased against the poor ignorant masses for sure because they were small government.

They surely were.
The united states initially had no parties and the initial idea behind the electorate was, that the uneducated people should vote someone educated out of their region, who would represent the regions interests when suggesting a presidential candidate and voting for him (together with all other electors from the electorate)

The electorate system began to make less and less sense, when parties were inriduced into the US governmental system and things like "winner takes all electors of the state" and "electors being bound to vote for the elector of their party".

Nowadays the electorate system is simply an undemocratic relic of times long gone

[Kidlicious]

So you think there are no structural biases in the US? I'll continue to benefit from you voting for politicians who favor the rich at the expense of everyone else.

The framers were biased against the poor ignorant masses for sure because they were small government.

[pchang]

So you think there are no structural biases in the US? I'll continue to benefit from you voting for politicians who favor the rich at the expense of everyone else.

[Kidlicious]

The amazing thing is that Kid is not embarrassed that a German know more about US political structures than he does. Instead, Kid proudly wears his ignorance as righteousness.

So you think the American system of government is unfair? I'll pay for you to move to Germany.