Post-Trump reforms you'd like to see

[The_Devil_s_Grandmother]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I may have missed it; do you have a cite for McConnell saying that?

“The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision” on who to name to the court, McConnell said in a March 16 speech on the floor of the Senate.

“The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice," [Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)] said in a statement. "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Saturday on the passing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:
"Today our country lost an unwavering champion of a timeless document that unites each of us as Americans. Justice Scalia’s fidelity to the Constitution was rivaled only by the love of his family: his wife Maureen his nine children, and his many grandchildren. Through the sheer force of his intellect and his legendary wit, this giant of American jurisprudence almost singlehandedly revived an approach to constitutional interpretation that prioritized the text and original meaning of the Constitution. Elaine and I send our deepest condolences to the entire Scalia family.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

[PigArcher]

@Shodan

I don’t recall him saying that.

Regards,
Shodan

@Mitch McConnell

This nomination ought to be made by the next president.

CITE (Snopes, but they link to primary sources).

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

He said that he believed the vacancy shouldn’t be filled at that point.

But I don’t see where he said Obama lacked the power to nominate somebody at that point; by way of comparison, it’s my position that Obama had the power to nominate somebody at that point — and, as far as I can tell, that was McConnell’s position as well! Why, as far as I can tell, Obama totally had the power to nominate a guy — and did so! And, as far as I can tell, McConnell knows that!

[eschereal]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

He said that he believed the vacancy shouldn’t be filled at that point.

But I don’t see where he said Obama lacked the power to nominate somebody at that point

What is the fucking difference? If they simply choose to ignore any nomination, and state that outright, they are essentially taking away his power to nominate.

[octopus]

@Dropo

Apart from relatives, friends, business cronies and those hoping to curry favor with a potential Trump administration, there was no valid reason to vote for him…and fewer valid reasons to not vote for H. Clinton instead. This indicates the need for a “none of the above” option. If “none of the above” wins, all existing candidates should withdraw and new candidates proposed. I believe this would have a moderating influence on the types of candidates presented, as it would be in no one’s interest to have a vacuum of power hold sway for very long (except of course for some foreign countries and Republican hardliners who would prefer a vacuum in the absence of their favored candidate).

There is also the inescapable indication that too many people – especially in Middle America and (of course) the South - lack certain essential critical thinking skills. As the stakes in elections, presidential and others, are often quite high, anyone who voted for Trump should be disqualified from voting in any future election, as their vote demonstrated they do not have sufficient capacity for understanding what they are doing. This would root out many uninformed or otherwise too fucking stupid voters who degrade our democracy.

And whilst acknowledging the intellectual shortcomings of too much of the American public, I would also support a ban on all sports/entertainment/other TV-created celebrities from entering politics. Too many voters seem to view “being on TV” as an actual qualification for political office. As such, they are too easily swayed by what they see and hear on TV, without being able to discern the substance (or lack thereof) of what is being said. Eliminating celebrities from politics – or less severely, mandating a waiting period before they run for office – seems a sensible solution to this clearly escalating problem.

I am also in favor of eliminating all direct donations to political candidates or causes by anyone other than individuals. Organizations do not vote. Only individuals vote; only individuals should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. Just like today, nothing would stop any organization from using their own money and resources to attempt to drum up support for their favored positions or candidates through advertising or other efforts (as long as such efforts are in accordance with their own bylaws and accommodate transparency laws identifying who paid for them), but direct donations to/coordination with campaigns should be outlawed with strict penalties. I have no idea what the current limits on individual political donations are, but above a certain level – say ten grand? Maybe twenty? – all donors should be publically identified.

Of course, none of these ideas has any chance of passing, and it is clear that Republicans (and fewer Democrats) would be willing to sacrifice or subvert them to the country’s detriment even if they did pass. As a final failsafe, I heartily endorse capital punishment for all presidential aspirants.

So Middle America and the South are disproportionately stupid and perhaps shouldn’t vote? Any other groups you want to apply an IQ or literacy test to?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@octopus

So Middle America and the South are disproportionately stupid and perhaps shouldn’t vote? Any other groups you want to apply an IQ or literacy test to?

Fox News viewers, Alex Jones fans, Adam Sandler…

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@eschereal

What is the fucking difference? If they simply choose to ignore any nomination, and state that outright, they are essentially taking away his power to nominate.

I genuinely don’t see it. He could, and did, still nominate a guy — because he in fact had the power to nominate that guy. The panhandler on the corner has the power to ask me for spare change — and he often does, even though I can choose to ignore him and even if I outright state that I will. You have the power to offer me money for my car — and that’s true if I accept, but it’s still true even if I don’t accept; it remains true even if I state outright that I won’t accept the offer you make.

I often donate blood — by which I mean I consent when people ask whether they can put a hole in my arm and take blood out. I can stop doing that, right? We agree that they can of course keep requesting my consent; but we also agree, I hope, that they don’t have the right to go further without my consent? They can but ask?

[Dropo]

@octopus

So Middle America and the South are disproportionately stupid and perhaps shouldn’t vote? Any other groups you want to apply an IQ or literacy test to?

I made no mention of IQ or literary tests, or applying them to anyone. Bringing up those concepts is 100% your contribution to the discussion. FTR, I do not support such tests.

Also, I did not write “perhaps” people who lack certain essential critical thinking skills should not vote. I wrote they should be disqualified from voting; and the only criteria mentioned for establishing that was whether they voted for Trump.

[octopus]

@Gyrate

Here’s another relevant quote:

“People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.”

• Terry Pratchett

That quote is actually quite sinister.

[Little_Nemo]

@Shodan

I don’t recall him saying that.

I thought it was out of character for you.

But whether you recall him saying it or not, he did say it. Other people have already provided the cites.

[Little_Nemo]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

He said that he believed the vacancy shouldn’t be filled at that point.

But I don’t see where he said Obama lacked the power to nominate somebody at that point; by way of comparison, it’s my position that Obama had the power to nominate somebody at that point — and, as far as I can tell, that was McConnell’s position as well! Why, as far as I can tell, Obama totally had the power to nominate a guy — and did so! And, as far as I can tell, McConnell knows that!

If the Senate had acted on Obama’s nomination and voted it down, that would be legit. But by refusing to even put the nomination up to a vote, they were ignoring his nomination and pretending it didn’t exist.

[Johnny_Ace]

A requirement that any candidate running for President must have read the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and all the Amendments, then pass a test televised on C-SPAN with a split screen showing the questions and the answers they write on one side and a shot of the candidate on the other.

[Shodan]

@Little_Nemo

I thought it was out of character for you.

But whether you recall him saying it or not, he did say it. Other people have already provided the cites.

No, no cites have been provided for what you claim. If you have such a cite, by all means produce it, but that hasn’t happened so far.
What we need is a cite where McConnell said the President may not nominate someone up to the last day of his or her term.

Regards,
Shodan

[foolsguinea]

@Bullitt

2020: Trump’s second term
2024: Pence’s first term
2028: Pence’s second term

Pence would have to disenfranchise or mass murder much of the country to make that happen. The man is just not likeable enough.* Ted Cruz* is more likeable than Mike Pence.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

Depends on who he’s running against, doesn’t it?

[eschereal]

@Dropo

I wrote they should be disqualified from voting; and the only criteria mentioned for establishing that was whether they voted for Trump.

Sadly, that is not a very workable criterion. At some point down the road, it would not be usable. But more importantly, only about 140 million Americans (and some indeterminate number of illegal immigrants, dead people, felons, pets and other interlopers) cast votes. Somewhere I saw that that worked out to a tad over 44% apathy, so how do you address the issue of those who did not vote?

For those who live in solid-color states, voting either way (or “other”) is not particularly indicative of reason or lack thereof. For those in the critical swing states, one might, possibly, view not voting as a disqualification, as non-votes could be seen as voting for the Kleptocrat, but it could just be nausea.

I actually think hurdles to voting are probably an idea worth considering, but they would have to be totally unbiased in any way, which is another hurdle unto itself.

[sbunny8]

@Northern_Piper

Who designs the algorithm?

This is very easy to answer, if you drop the part about following geographical boundaries such as rivers.

First, you need a detailed map of the exact longitude and latitude of the home address of every registered voter. In the days of Google Maps, this is pretty easy and both major parties already have such databases (although their copies of the data are less than 100% accurate). The next part is really hard to do by hand but quite easy with a computer: Find the shortest possible arrangement of straight lines that precisely divides the region into the desired number of polygons with equal numbers of registered voters in each polygon. There is only one answer for the shortest total line length. Computer programs already exist to do these calculations in order to optimize for power held by a political party. Simply rewrite the subroutine that evaluates success to ignore political parties and make decisions solely on total lengths of all the lines. The last step is easy and we already do it in Oregon: send each registered voter a ballot in the mail with a code that identifies which zone they live in, custom printed for that specific city, county, council ward, congressional district, etc. Allow the voter to send it in by mail or drop it off at a nearby election office drop box. Have a computer scan the paper ballot and keep the paper for recounts.

Any disputes are trivially easy to settle. If two people have different maps that subdivide the population, one of the maps uses longer lines than the other. That one is wrong.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@ElvisL1ves

Failure? Yes, as we’ve seen in both the Dubya and Trump administrations. We narrowly escaped failure in both 2000 and 2016, didn’t we?

I’m not 100% sure what you’re saying here, but to clarify my point: failure is civil war. Do you think we narrowly escaped that in 2000 or 2016? I don’t. I don’t think we were particularly close. I think we might be much closer in a case where a close election causes a bitter contested vote in every precinct in the country.

Some of us think democracy is more important than orderliness. YMMV.

I wish it were possible to have these discussions without this sort of smug dismissal. I think democracy is important too. I think it’s important enough that it’s worth dealing with the imperfect system we have over the less stable one proposed.

[ElvisL1ves]

@iamthewalrus_3

I’m not 100% sure what you’re saying here, but to clarify my point: failure is civil war. Do you think we narrowly escaped that in 2000 or 2016?

1. The administrations that came to power in 2000 and 2016 were failures. 2. *What *civil war? :dubious:

I wish it were possible to have these discussions without this sort of smug dismissal.

You’re being asked to clarify what your fundamental values are. If that’s a problem for you, it’s your problem.

I think democracy is important too. I think it’s important enough that it’s worth dealing with the imperfect system we have over the less stable one proposed.

You value “stability”, whatever you define that to be, over the rule of We the People. That’s a problem. Overruling us *causes *instability, by devaluing our democratic institutions. You even claim it has brought us close to civil war. Yet you think respecting popular will would be even more unstable? Get your story together, please.

[eschereal]

I would also like to see all government officials removed from social media, at least in their official capacity.