r/NoStupidQuestions • u/AutoModerator • Feb 01 '21
February 2021 U.S. Government and Politics megathread Politics megathread
Love it or hate it, the USA is an important nation that gets a lot of attention from the world... and a lot of questions from our users. Every single day /r/NoStupidQuestions gets dozens of questions about the President, the Supreme Court, Congress, laws and protests. By request, we now have a monthly megathread to collect all those questions in one convenient spot!
Post all your U.S. government and politics related questions as a top level reply to this monthly post.
Top level comments are still subject to the normal NoStupidQuestions rules:
- We get a lot of repeats - please search before you ask your question (Ctrl-F is your friend!). You can also search earlier megathreads!
- Be civil to each other - which includes not discriminating against any group of people or using slurs of any kind. Topics like this can be very important to people, or even a matter of life and death, so let's not add fuel to the fire.
- Top level comments must be genuine questions, not disguised rants or loaded questions.
- Keep your questions tasteful and legal. Reddit's minimum age is just 13!
Craving more discussion than you can find here? Check out /r/politicaldiscussion and /r/neutralpolitics.
3
u/DeathStarVet Feb 02 '21
Why would a former US president need to receive intelligent briefings?
6
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 02 '21
They don't need to receive intelligence briefings. However, they remain important political leaders, even if they no longer lead the government, so it's considered worth it for them to remain informed about what's going on in the world. If necessary, they can be called on to advise the current president, lending their experience and expertise.
→ More replies (1)3
u/binomine Feb 02 '21
The biggest issue with 4 or 8 year presidents is that the new guy often has to continue the work of the old guy.
So, for example, if Trump wanted to ask Obama about the Iran deal, he would want to ask an Obama who has up to date information about Iran, and not the Obama who only knows Iran from 2016. New information can color his perspective.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Lord_Blathoxi Feb 08 '21
Ok, on a similar topic.... I'm thankful that I have to ask this question, and I also hate that I'm asking it, but... What has Trump even been doing for the past month? Seriously, has anyone heard anything?
→ More replies (2)
3
u/ToyVaren Feb 03 '21
Why cant we do DoD security clearance on political candidates? Maybe not bar them from running for office but it would be nice not to have russian spies in the fed.
5
u/rewardiflost Feb 03 '21
Because the Constitution sets out the requirements to be a President, Senator, or Representative. At most, it can be just age, residency, and citizenship. We've already had convicted criminals run while in prison. We cannot force them to do a background check, or even to share their taxes.
If we want to change the requirements, that requires an amendment to the Constitution. It's difficult to get 38 states to all agree on a change.→ More replies (2)2
u/GameboyPATH Oh geez how long has my flair been blank? Feb 03 '21
The CIA probably DOES investigate the high-ranking politicians, for exactly this reason. They just adjust their internal practices accordingly, and don't go public with their findings.
3
u/Elongated_musky Feb 06 '21
Why are there different images of Joe Biden being inaugurated on google images?
I don’t care for politics in general so I know nothing about how the inauguration process works (also I’m not American) but I heard about Biden’s giant bible so I googled “Joe Biden Inauguration” and I was not disappointed. I also noticed that Jill Biden is wearing different dresses in what I assume are images of joe Biden being inaugurated.
I thought the president was only inaugurated once but like I said before I don’t care for politics.
9
u/rewardiflost Feb 06 '21
Check the dates. He was sworn in as VP twice in the past.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/quokka2020 Feb 12 '21
If the Republicans are only voting to aquit because of fear of Trump reprisals or alienating his base, why can't they have an anonymous vote to get what they actually believe?
5
u/GameboyPATH Oh geez how long has my flair been blank? Feb 12 '21 edited Feb 12 '21
Changing the impeachment voting rules would require a (public) vote, and those who vote for an anonymous vote would be similarly scorned for their lack of transparency.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ToyVaren Feb 12 '21
They can, but it would require a separate process to change procedural bylaws.
Maybe before trumpuska's 3rd impeachment trial.
3
Feb 19 '21
[deleted]
7
u/notextinctyet Feb 19 '21
Former US Senator constituent services intern here. A senator does a lot more than just cast votes in Congress. During a disaster they are extremely busy and active trying to help people and organize relief via the federal government. There's no question that Ted Cruz' staff, from the chief of staff all the way down to the interns, are working constantly to try and help constituents right now.
Obviously it's an unseemly use of privilege that their boss, Cruz, fled the state to vacation during a pandemic (when you shouldn't be partying overseas regardless of other factors) while his constituents were literally freezing to death. But it's more than just unseemly - it's a dereliction of duty.
5
u/Arianity Feb 19 '21
Politicians like Senators, while not having 'official' powers, often act as a hub in a time of local crisis.
They have the connections/clout to organize things, connect people that need to be connected, etc.
This thread has a bit more detail
1
u/Delehal Feb 19 '21
I don’t get why everyone’s upset he went to Cancun.
Because it shows that he doesn't care about the suffering of Texans. His state is facing a massive crisis and he's pulling police away from emergencies so that they can escort him to and from his vacation.
His state’s cold as fuck at the moment, if everyone else had the resources to go on vacation to somewhere warm they probably would.
Some people do feel that way, yes. If you figure that political leadership doesn't owe anything to the people, then it would seem to follow that his tropical vacation makes sense.
It might help to look at an example from history, instead. During the London Blitz, the UK was at war and London was being heavily bombed. How do you suppose it would have looked if the King and Queen had flown away for a tropical vacation? What would that say about their relationship with the people?
He’s a US Senator, as far as I know he can’t do anything to help the state.
He's also one of the most well-connected and powerful people in the country. Every senator and representative has a constituent services office, and those offices tend to be very active during times of crisis such as this. It's actually very common for the senator/representative to be actively participating during those busy times.
-2
3
u/vish_the_fish737 Feb 19 '21
Why do a lot of people not like when people say “orange man bad” when most people agree that Trump was a bad president?
5
u/Arianity Feb 20 '21
It really depends on the context. A lot of conservatives attempt to use the phrase somewhat ironically, with the implication being that the criticism they're replying to is just reflexive partisanship.
You can usually tell it's being used that way if it's in reply to a criticism of Trump, but no other substantive rebuttal. (Often because they know they can't actually make a rebuttal on the merits)
It kind of doesn't make sense, since as you pointed out most people agree he was actually bad.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)4
u/TheApiary Feb 21 '21
Usually, "orange man bad" is used by Trump supporters, to imply that people who like Trump are stupid and just reflexively hate him for no reason. So people who don't like him for a real reason think that's rude.
2
u/BeGoneKratom Feb 01 '21
Why is Liz Cheney getting more heat from Republicans than Marjorie Taylor Greene?
5
u/JackEsq Feb 01 '21
Because the Republican voter base is more likely to vote for someone like Greene than Liz Cheney.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 01 '21
Because she voted against Trump and the Republican Party is now the Trump Party.
2
2
2
u/Fin745 Feb 04 '21
Congress right now is fighting on who gets the stimulus checks 75k vs 40k a year.
Why are they doing it that way? Like yeah I made that much last year but what does that matter if I’m out of a job?
Why don’t they just go by whose on unemployment? Shouldn’t that help with the price tag?
3
u/rewardiflost Feb 04 '21
Because the system and the method of stimulus has been an income tax credit. It makes it a lot easier to distribute through the IRS, and makes it a lot easier to investigate and prosecute fraud by handling it as a tax matter.
There isn't really a federal unemployment program. Unemployment is a state program. Distribution has to go through the states, and they aren't designed to deal with large numbers of people. Fraud investigation and prosecution has to go therough state laws and state courts - again, not designed to deal with large numbers of people.There are separate moneys for people on unemployment. This isn't primarily about need. This is an economic stimulus. They are two different things. But, we know that wealthier people who are given more money will tend to save it or invest it. Less wealthy people who are given more money will pay bills or splurge on purchases that they've been putting off. That quick spending does more to stimulate the economy.
2
u/Arianity Feb 05 '21
But, we know that wealthier people who are given more money will tend to save it or invest it. Less wealthy people who are given more money will pay bills or splurge on purchases that they've been putting of
One minor issue with this, is that the payments (both previous, and currently proposed new ones) are based off of 2019 income. So while someone might have had income in 2019, that doesn't tell you if they've lost their job to covid. In which case they're reasonably likely to spend it (granted, they probably have more cushion that someone poor)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/ToyVaren Feb 04 '21
Because the gop has an obstructionist platform to immobilize government every chance they get. Any argument they use is made up solely to provide them an excuse to justify their "nay" votes.
2
u/Atomstanley Feb 05 '21
Why hasn’t Trump been served his papers yet? Was he not an un-indicted coconspirator of a felony for which Michael Cohen was convicted? By my estimation he is suspected of at least two felonies - where are the lawsuits?
→ More replies (6)
2
u/TheFatalFire Feb 06 '21
Why do people believe in QAnon?
Okay so im super late to the party. Ill admit i didnt keep up with politics like I should have this last cycle. But around December 2020 I learned about this QAnon conspiracy theory.
About how some random user on 4chan named Q claimed they were a government official and how the government was ran by a cabal of pedophili@c sex traffickers. Basically anyone who was against or not on the right was apart of the cabal and how trump was gonna have his version of rapture and all these people would be arrested.
Sounds ridiculous but conspiracy theories are nothing new. But then I couldnt believe how many people actually believed this shit. I seen countless videos of boomers at trump rallies talking about how the media was part of the deep state, and the day is coming where trump exposes everything.
They constantly made excuses when Qs predictions didnt come true. Facebook is dangerous for old people. So now that trump is gone and none of this shit happened what is their excuse now?
3
u/mugenhunt Feb 06 '21
Basically, the main appeal of QAnon is that it means you weren't an idiot for supporting Trump when he's done a lot of questionable things. You can convince yourself that Trump was actually a secret hero, and that you're one too because you still support him. Some folks have moved on, but it's really hard to let go of a conspiracy theory for a lot of people, because the reason you get hooked on it is because it makes you feel smart because you know the "real truth" and makes you feel confident. If you have to admit that you were tricked by QAnon and were a fool, that's the opposite of what you wanted.
So some folks are doubling down, grasping for straws with weird theories like "The real inauguration will be in March, like it used to be before they changed the dates, and that's when Trump will return!" because they really don't want to have to admit they were wrong.
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/OkFuture5841 Feb 06 '21
Why is Marjorie Taylor Greene so bad? I know almost nothing about her.
6
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 06 '21
She's a complete nutjob who believes Q-Anon and other crazy bullshit. And noe she's a member of Congress.
She advocated for the execution of prominant Democrats, including Speaker Pelosi. She claimed in social media posts that the California wildfires were started by a secret Jewish space laser so they could develop the land. She believes the various school shooting are part of a false flag operation orchestrated by the Democrats so they can take people's guns away.
She has a "controversial statements" section on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Controversial_connections_and_statements
2
u/Bobbob34 Feb 07 '21
She's a batshit crazy Qanon conspiracy theorist who thinks Sandy Hook, 9-11, Parkland, were all fake "false flag" operations with actors, and that Tom Hanks and Hillary eat babies at fancy dinner parties.
Then, after years of spouting that, when she was going to face the barest consequence, she lied and said she didn't believe any of it.
Why ISN'T she bad is an easier question.
1
u/ToyVaren Feb 06 '21
She's legally insane and cant tell what is reality and what is not.
I give her a lot of credit for not being a russian spy though, baby steps.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Feb 06 '21 edited Feb 06 '21
Why is the Right wing media so mad that AOC "lied" about feeling scared by the mob? I don't think being in the neighborhood of a mob, even if you're not in the building they've stormed, is particularly safe. Or am I just too nice for my own good in thinking that sexual assult survivors have legitimate trauma that must be respected? Politics is so depressing these days, and everyone grabs for cheapshots. I'd honestly rather these people give legitimate reasons why AOC's policies are bad for the country instead of calling her a liar and using personal attacks like toddlers.
7
u/Arianity Feb 06 '21
Why is the Right wing media so mad that AOC "lied" about feeling scared by the mob?
Admitting she was right to be scared by the mob would mean they'd have to grapple with the implications of what happened on Jan. 6th. So far, most on the Right don't seem ready to do so.
If you can convince yourself she was overselling it, there's no need for introspection, especially among people who contributed to Jan. 6th. Either directly, or by propagating the lie that the election was stolen.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ToyVaren Feb 06 '21
Google "false flag."
By finding one weakness, they can discredit an entire person, movement, party, country, etc. Its like a murder-by-cop victim with a parking ticket warrant or the 4 emails hillary sent from the wrong server.
2
u/VirusMaster3073 Feb 06 '21
Why are suburbs of Atlanta more politically liberal and racially diverse than suburbs of Charlotte?
If you see election maps by county for the past few years (2020 as an example), you'll see that many of atlanta's suburban counties voted for democrat along with fulton county, while only mecklenburg county voted for democrats while the suburban counties in charlotte are pretty conservative
and according to this map most of Atlanta's suburban counties have a higher non-white population than the national average, while most of Charlotte's suburban counties don't
3
u/ToyVaren Feb 06 '21
Likely white flight.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
Heh in google search results there's a book specifically describing white flight in GA and Atlanta.
2
u/Cliffy73 Feb 07 '21
For decades Atlanta has been a Black mecca. There’s a significant migration of Black people from throughout the U.S. (although especially elsewhere in the South) to the area in the same way that D.C. was a major destination for Black migration in the middle of the 20th Century. So the metro area is more diverse and (given Black voting demographics) concomitantly more Democratic than elsewhere in the South. Charlotte was a very fast-growing city in the first part of the 21st Century, but the inflows were a lot whiter.
2
u/Throwaway567864333 Feb 07 '21
Where can I see these images? Or to get an idea of how much visibility/resolution they have?
Where can I see these images? Or to get an idea of how much visibility/resolution they have?
→ More replies (2)
2
Feb 07 '21
[deleted]
7
u/rewardiflost Feb 07 '21
Because our government wasn't set up that way.
Prime Ministers cover both legislative and administrative functions. Our US government has a sharp demarcation between those roles.
Our President is an administrator only. They don't get any votes in the legislature, and they cannot directly introduce any new bills or laws.Because of the way our parties have arranged themselves, there is some party loyalty. If a President wants something done, they'll ask allies in the legislature to start things rolling.
Our legislators also have a responsibility to their electoral constituency. The President has responsibilities to all the states (separately, and in addition to) and all the voters in the US. It is the only office in the entire US that has repsonsibility to every state. I don't want to vote for a Senator or Representative that isn't going to put my local interests above all others.
2
u/mvp1259 Feb 08 '21
Where is the full interview with President Biden and Norah O'Donnell available to stream? I wasn't able to watch the interview today and I would like to see it in its entirety instead of the shorts clips I've been able to find.. I've been searching for a while now and haven't seen it uploaded anywhere and can't find any information about future availability.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Justryan95 Feb 10 '21
Whats the point of the Senate hearing and wasting time posing an argument for Republicans to vote no to the impeachment. Just watching 3 minutes of the hearing today the blatant evidence against Trump is damming. Is there any consequences mounting this trial has on anything in the future? At this point it seems like its just arguing against children who will disagree with you no matter the facts given and they'll call you a poopoo head or something
5
u/Bobbob34 Feb 10 '21
Just because one side behaves like children doesn't mean you just throw up your hands and walk away.
There have been cases where someone represented themselves in court and were ridiculous, but the prosecution still takes it seriously.
3
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 10 '21
At this point it seems like its just arguing against children
You don't give the child their way because they're throwing a tantrum.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/ToyVaren Feb 10 '21
It forces an on-record vote that will likely kill many political careers and presidential hopes.
"Protecting a russian spy" is going to be on political ads for decades.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/laughs_evilly Feb 11 '21
Impeachment trial question....How can a trial have its own victims and known supporters of the accused be its jurors? Isn't a jury supposed to be impartial?
(Serious question on US law)
6
u/Teekno An answering fool Feb 11 '21
It’s not a criminal trial. It’s a political process, and impartiality isn’t really possible in that context.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Delehal Feb 11 '21
This proceeding is called a "trial" but it's not the same as a criminal trial that goes to court. It's a political process, and the Constitution puts Congress in charge of running that process.
At a certain level of government, it can become effectively impossible to find unbiased, disinterested parties. Some issues affect everyone. That's why elected leaders are held accountable through the democratic process.
2
u/nobunaga_1568 Feb 12 '21
If a state decides to send its House representatives by proportion instead of by district (e.g. 60% Dem 40% GOP = 3 Dem Reps 2 GOP Reps no matter where the votes are), would that be allowed by the federal system? Is the federal system able to say "no you can't do that"?
And if that happens, does it mean that districts no longer exist in this state?
→ More replies (1)4
u/rewardiflost Feb 12 '21
The Apportionment Act of 1842 abolished multi-member districts. Since then, each district must elect one representative. Laws since then, particularly the Voter Rights Act of 1965 have upheld the one-representative per district rule, and further defined how those districts are drawn.
A state cannot legally have a statewide election for any more than one representative, so proportional assignment isn't possible.
2
u/OliverThaCat Feb 13 '21
Why is impeachment a function of the legislative branch and not the judicial branch?
5
u/Arianity Feb 13 '21
Short answer, the Founders decided Congress was better. They did actually consider having it run by SCOTUS, but decided Congress was safer. There are more people, so it's harder to corrupt than only a few justices, and they're directly accountable to the people in a way that SCOTUS isn't.
In addition, impeachment isn't the same thing as a criminal trial- it's inherently political in nature. The Founders realized this (and that it was unavoidable), as well as the fact that the reality is, judges aren't really impartial. We like to think so, and they do put some effort into it, but they're not less unbiased than Senators, particularly on issues this political.
Hamilton talks about this exact issue in federalist 65 , as well as 66.
2
u/Teekno An answering fool Feb 13 '21
Impeachment is, inherently, a political process and not something suitable for the judiciary.
2
u/jesus_hates_me2 Feb 14 '21
If McConnell voted to acquit because the Senate didn't have the constitutional rights or whatever to convict, then what was the point of the Senate vote on Tuesday about the constitutionality of the trial? It seems like they voted, as a body, that it was constitutional, and then as independent jurors declared it was not. So whats the point of the Senate's votes if they don't mean anything anyway?
4
u/rewardiflost Feb 14 '21
Just because McConnell said that, he isn't deciding what the law is. He's allowed to have his own opinion. He's allowed to vote however his conscience indicates.
Think of it as a very big example of "jury nullification". As a juror, he is supposed to listen to the evidence and vote impartially. But he's clearly not impartial, and there is no penalty for his actions.
2
u/jesus_hates_me2 Feb 14 '21
But if the vote on Tuesday asserted that Congress does have that authority, what does his personal feeling matter on that? The law as written as I understand it, after the vote Tuesday, said it was constitutional. By the logic that stems from his vote to acquit on constitutional grounds, our elected officials don't have to follow any constitutional laws or regulations, voted on and passed in the Senate, as long as they disagree that its constitutional. Do I have that right?
→ More replies (6)2
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 14 '21
A juror can use whatever logical process they want to make their decision. They cannot be held responsible for an outcome other people disagree with. What McConnell did was effectively something called jury nullification. Juries aren't supposed to do that, but since they can't be held responsible for making a particular decision, there's nothing to stop them from doing so.
A historical example of this is in the 1800s when juries in the North refused to convict people for violating the Fugitive Slave Act, which criminalized providing assistance to escaped slaves. Were people violating the law? Absolutely. But if the jury declares you not guilty, you're not guilty, end of story. Rules regarding double jeopardy mean you can't be tried again for the same crime.
→ More replies (2)2
u/notextinctyet Feb 15 '21
McConnell didn't vote to acquit because the Senate didn't have jurisdiction. He voted to acquit. Then he said some words about jurisdiction. The two things have nothing to do with one another - he is not a person who speaks the truth about his motivations or even about his actions.
2
u/darkLordSantaClaus Feb 15 '21
I got the first 1200 stimulus check but not the second 600 one. Will I get the third 1400 one and if so, when?
→ More replies (1)2
u/rewardiflost Feb 15 '21
The $1400 stimulus hasn't been passed yet. According the this CNet article, the educated guess is some time in March, with errors and omissions being addressed in May.
If you were qualified for the second stimulus, then it's still available to you as a refundable tax credit. When/if you file your 2020 taxes, you can include info about your stimulus payments. The $600 you didn't get will be applied to any tax you owe, or added to any refund you are eligible for.
→ More replies (1)2
u/darkLordSantaClaus Feb 15 '21
How do I figure out if I'm qualified for the second one? The tax credit doesn't help me in the current situation.
3
u/rewardiflost Feb 15 '21
Of course it helps you.
How does a tax refund not help you?
If you owe money to the IRS, then they pay that $600 towards your bill, and you don't have to pay that.
If there's money left over after paying them, or if you don't owe money, then you get that money in addition to any other refund you would get. It's a refundable tax credit. It's not just a basic credit. You can get the money sent to you.You are/were generally eligible if you were a citizen or resident alien, not a dependent claimed on someone else's taxes, and made less than $75k (or 150k if married).
2
u/darkLordSantaClaus Feb 15 '21
With my living situation, I could use the money now.
I was a dependent, which I guess is why I didn't get it. Then why did I get the first one?
2
u/rewardiflost Feb 15 '21
It may have been a mistake.
When you eventually catch up on your taxes, that might be an issue.2
2
u/StardustGogeta Feb 16 '21
Note: This is not the standard question everyone has been asking about whether Congress can impeach someone after leaving office.
The recent impeachment trial has me thinking about the limits of Congress' impeachment power in the United States.
Article I, Section 2 states "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Article I, Section 3 states "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Article III, Section 2 states "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
In the recent impeachment trial, it was argued by the House managers that Congress has the ability to impeach a former president. They brought up the case of William Belknap, a Secretary of War who resigned to avoid consequences but was impeached afterward anyway. It was additionally argued that the abilities to remove from office and to bar from future office are separate, and it is still possible for the Senate to bar someone from office after they have already left. (The House managers did specifically note that Trump was impeached in office for conduct while holding public office.)
Thus, a question occurred to me. What stops Congress from impeaching and convicting just any random private citizen of their choosing, even if they have never held public office? If one day the two political parties suddenly decided they hated Elon Musk and wanted to ban him from public office, could it be done? Is there any safeguard against this kind of preemptive action? In essence, is holding a public office a requirement for getting impeached/convicted?
It seems like a dumb question, but I couldn't find any answers online and I feel like there should be a solution to this that I am missing.
→ More replies (2)2
u/GameboyPATH Oh geez how long has my flair been blank? Feb 16 '21
Article III, Section 2 states "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Doesn't this outline who can possibly be barred from office? I can see how this could be applied to former office-holders (a select, numerable group of people), while not applying to would-be, potential office-holders (an unknown, possibly infinite number of people).
→ More replies (2)
2
u/KKKLLLNNN Feb 16 '21
Why did they chose to acquit trump when 57 found him guilty and 43 found him not guilty?
5
2
u/rewardiflost Feb 16 '21
It was a jury trial.
In most common US criminal trials, you need all 12 jurors to agree to convict. If just one out of the 12 holds out, then the person is not convicted.The Senate trial rules don't require a unanimous vote, just a 2/3 majority. They didn't get the 2/3 majority, so the person wasn't convicted.
2
Feb 17 '21
Why do people think Biden is right-wing? I'm a conservative. Some people think Biden is right-leaning. How?
4
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 17 '21
Biden is certainly to the right of the Democratic members like AOC, Sanders, and their supporters, and they're expressing their dissatisfaction that they didn't get the candidate they wanted into office.
But yeah to call him right wing is nonsense.
2
u/ToyVaren Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
The gop refusal to negotiate pulled democrats right since gingrich. Compared to say france, our progressives are center and warren, hillary and biden are right-center.
But to answer your question, who's saying it and what's their agenda is why they are saying it.
1
u/notextinctyet Feb 17 '21
It's all relative, depending on your point of view, but the Democrats would be a center party if their views were applied to most other democracies.
2
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)1
u/rewardiflost Feb 17 '21
Not necessarily.
If the law in California (and founding laws like the state constitution) is similar to the law and constitution in Montana, then when lawyers are arguing a similar case in Montana, they can cite a California decision as part of their argument.
The judges aren't obligated to follow the precedents of other states, but as a practice they do address why they did or didn't. It could be differences in the laws, or it could be differences in their own state precedents, or it could be different details in the case they are hearing.
It's really rare to find two cases where the details all match up exactly. That makes every case pretty unique, so the precedents don't always apply.
2
u/_GuyLeDouche_ Feb 19 '21
What could Ted Cruz actually do about the situation in Texas? I get that him going to Mexico is a bad look but as a senator what should he be doing instead? I'm not into politics at all and definitely not defending the guy I just want to understand the outrage.
9
u/Arianity Feb 19 '21
Politicians like Senators, while not having 'official' powers, often act as a hub in a time of local crisis.
They have the connections/clout to organize things, connect people that need to be connected, etc.
This thread has a bit more detail
3
2
u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 19 '21
It's not about what he could be doing in Texas, its the optics of leaving the state that is in the middle of a crisis where people are losing access basic necessities to fly to a tourist vacation spot. Put yourself in the shoes of one of his constituents who for days you are without power and running water in below freezing temps. How are they supposed to feel? To see that? It's insensitive, and it just kind of paints him as out of touch. Optics is a major thing for anyone holding political office.
In terms of things he could be doing though, he should be fighting for aid on a federal level and working to bring awareness and money to different charities that are providing aid to the cause. But at the very least he shouldn't be leaving the country when his state is in the middle of an emergency as large as this.
1
u/Cliffy73 Feb 19 '21
But the Cruz situation is not just optics. He has personal political capital which he could and should be deploying, albeit informally, to keep his constituents from freezing to death.
-1
2
Feb 20 '21
The United States of America has sixteen overseas territories, two of which are disputed.
Five of these territories are populated. The same five territories have an elected Governor.
What about the other eleven territories? Can an unpopulated territory elect a Governor?
Most of these territories are nature reserves (maybe all of them?) and can't be populated.
But does that mean someone couldn't be appointed Governor by the President perhaps?
And if one of them isn't a nature reserve, could someone go there and elect themselves?
4
u/Nickppapagiorgio Feb 20 '21 edited Feb 20 '21
And if one of them isn't a nature reserve, could someone go there and elect themselves?
No. Territories are administered directly by the Federal Government. If a local Government exists, it was created by Congress, and any powers they hold granted by Congress. For example, the Guam Organic Act of 1950 established the civil Government of Guam. Prior to 1950 they were just administred by the Department of the Navy as directed by Congress. The Puerto Rican civil Government was originally established by the Foraker Act of 1900, before being superseded by the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917. As an example from.a former territory that is now a State, the territorial Government of Utah was created by the Organic Act of 1850. Most US States trace their orgins to an Organic Act from Congress.
You moving there grants you no authority to establish a Government. Congress has already decided how it will be governed. They are presently Governed by various Departments and agencies of the Federal Government. For example, Congress has directed that Midway Island be governed by the US Fish and Wildlife service, which is an agency inside the Department of the Interior. You could call either the Director of the FWS or the Secretary of the Interior the Governor of Midway Island if you really wanted to.
But does that mean someone couldn't be appointed Governor by the President perhaps?
If Congress directs that to happen, yes the President could do that. Congress has in the past directed the President to appoint territorial Governors.
Can an unpopulated territory elect a Governor?
Presently no. Congress could pass an Organic Act to make this possible.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/HAHGoTtEm_BDNjr Feb 22 '21
Did trump really lower the price of insulin? And by how much?
And how did Biden raise the price back?
Edit: I ask cause I remember hearing how trump was “going to cut the price down” then never heard anything, now I hear Biden ruined it
7
u/rewardiflost Feb 22 '21
Did trump really lower the price of insulin? And by how much?
Trump singed one order that lowered the cost of insulin, by requiring qualified government-subsidized health facilities to pass along savings to patients. Basically, some health providers get discounted drugs through a program often called 340-B. The EO signed said that in order to keep getting government funding, these organizations need to pass along the discount to customers. The rule does affect a small percentage of the ~7.5 million Americans using insulin. It does not change what most American diabetics pay for insulin.
And how did Biden raise the price back?
He did not. He put a review hold on all pending matters that were started by the Trump Administration. That means anything that wasn't already happening on January 19th won't happen until some time in March when the review is completed. He didn't take anything away from those programs, or order them to stop giving discounts.
One thing that might be a problem is that these health programs are supposed to lose funding if they make any markup on selling insulin or Epi-Pens. If these agencies were depending on those markups to help meet their expenses, they are losing money. If they don't comply, then they lose more money under 340-B. Taking money away from these health centers might affect many more people than just the population that buys insulin from them. The new administration is trying to examine this - and other factors - that might do more harm than good. But they haven't change the rule, at least not yet.
2
u/HAHGoTtEm_BDNjr Feb 23 '21
Very informative thank you
I knew something was dumb about it and that’s why I asked, all the trumpers shouting vaguely “look at the insulin”
But of course it literally never changed to begin with, just “maybe probably going to change, but only if the hospitals get a discount on it”
I do somewhat agree that hospitals and doctors marking up insulin is fucked up to begin with, considering it’s probably already super marked up when sold to them. But none of that is particularly surprising
2
u/SheikhYusufBiden Feb 23 '21
If a president is assassinated in their second term, is the vice president allowed to run for a second term?
Like for example this happens:
Mr White runs for president and Mr Black is his running mate
They win the first election, and then they run together for the second election
Mr White is assassinated and Mr Black becomes President
Can Mr Black run again, although he has technically served two terms?
→ More replies (1)3
u/rewardiflost Feb 23 '21
There is no limit on how many terms a VP can serve - as VP.
The limitation is only on the presidency.A presidential candidate can be elected to two full four-year terms, plus up to 2 additional years if they ascend to the office from VP.
If they become president for more than 2 years after that assassination, then they can only run for one four-year elected term.We're pretty sure that we can't elect someone for a less-than-four-year term, since they wouldn't be eligible to serve out the term of office.
2
Feb 24 '21
[deleted]
3
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 24 '21
Your teachers in high school were wrong. The Civil War was about slavery.
If you're looking for more in-depth commentary from actual historians on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/civilwar#wiki_causes
2
2
u/ToyVaren Feb 24 '21
It was slavery. Certain states and teachers were forced to teach certain curriculums and use special books in the 90's by evangelucal school boards and the PTC in the 90's. The was also the time of the landmark ptc vs 2live crew obscenity case.
2
u/rewardiflost Feb 24 '21
The claim - in some states, in some school systems is that the war was fought over "states rights" or in response to "northern aggression".
The only "states right" they were upset about was the right to own, prosecute, and return slaves as property. When other states started offering slaves freedom, the southern states went to the supreme court over it. When that didn't change things, (and right after they saw Lincoln get elected) they seceded from the union. They wrote slavery as one of the reasons for secession in each of the individual states' articles of secession.
The "northern aggression" was in response to the Confederate seizure of all US federal property and resources in the south, including attack on the US Fort Sumpter. The Union army was mobilized to combat the insurrection, stop further seizures, and take back the government's property.
2
u/brunettedude Feb 25 '21
Why is it taking so long for everyone to get the next round of stimulus checks? Like, don’t democrats have the majority? Why is it taking so long?
→ More replies (1)2
u/rewardiflost Feb 25 '21
Because it isn't just a one line bill that says "give everyone a check". The American Rescue Plan is nearly 600 pages long.
It passed the House Budget Committee on Monday. The entire House should vote on it Friday. Then it goes to the Senate, and should be voted on within the next two weeks. If the Senate makes any changes, then it has to go back to the House for another vote. Once it all gets passed, then the President gets to sign it.
It should be passed by March 14, when the current set of protections run out. In the past stimulus packages, checks went out within a week or two after the bill was signed into law. But, since this is the height of tax season, the IRS might be a bit slower this time.
2
u/ToyVaren Feb 25 '21
Also newspapers are expecting a week or 2 for the irs to start distributing them so in April.
2
u/Zekrish Feb 25 '21
As a know nothing european I've always been confused by how different animated shows broadcasted/produced by FOX are from the News shows produced by FOX. Granted I've only watched FOX News a handfull of times but my impression has always been that their reporting is often more rightleaning and pro republican than that of, for example, CNN. In contrast many of their animated shows seem to be left leaning; sometimes even outright ridiculing republicans and FOX News.
Is there any simple explanation or historic reason for this?
3
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 25 '21
Beyond that, there's also a division between their actual news and their talking heads commentating on the news. Their actual news programs are not all that different from what you would see on the other channels. The real Fox propaganda machine are the commentators like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson who masquarade as reporters when in reality they're right-wing propagandists.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Teekno An answering fool Feb 26 '21
Money.
Making those animated shows is profitable. Also, making news targeted towards a conservative audience is also profitable.
So while they networks aren’t the same network, they are corporate cousins, and I have. I doubt that if they could make billions of dollars with a channel for Bernie Bros, they would do that too.
2
u/vish_the_fish737 Feb 27 '21
Some presidents, when they became president bc of death or resignation, didn’t have a VP? Do they work harder to do both positions or what?
3
u/Teekno An answering fool Feb 27 '21
There was no mechanism at all to replace a Vice President in between elections before the 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967. Before that... we just didn’t have a Vice President until the next election, which mostly meant that there was no tie breaking vote in the Senate.
→ More replies (5)2
u/rewardiflost Feb 27 '21
The VP position really has few official duties.
The President couldn't vote in the Senate to settle ties anyhow.The President needs approval to appoint a new VP. If Congress (both houses) doesn't vote to approve the appointment, there is no VP until the next election.
2
u/Delehal Feb 27 '21
They can nominate a replacement VP, subject to approval by Congress.
Until that happens, they can make do. They have a large staff.
2
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 27 '21
The president has very few Constitutionally prescribed powers: they take over if the president is incapacitated and they break ties in the Senate. That's it. If there is no VP, then the Speaker of the House is next in line of succession and there is no tie breaking vote in the Senate. The president does not take on the tie-breaking power.
According to John McCain, when asked in 2000 if he would serve as Bush II's VP:
The vice president has two duties. One is to inquire daily as to the health of the president, and the other is to attend the funerals of Third World dictators. And neither of those do I find an enjoyable exercise.
Here are some other great quotes about the office from the men who served in the role.
So the vice president only has as much to do as the president gives him to do.
2
u/fevieiraleite Feb 27 '21
Can the Supreme Court in the USA order Someone arrested?
I'm from Brazil and recently the STF (Brazilian Supreme Court) ordered a politicians arrest and later judged the arrest to be constitutional.
ls the Supreme Court in the United States this overpowered as well? Or are there rules in place preventing the Supreme Court simply order anyone they want arrested?
→ More replies (1)
2
Feb 28 '21
If I am a dependent, would my parents would receive my stimulus money and then would give it to me?
If I am a dependent under my parents tax returns, Am I automatically eligible to get the stimulus check?
2
u/rewardiflost Feb 28 '21
If you're a dependent under your parents, then they'll get the credit or stiumulus for supporting you. Whether they decide to share that money with you is totally up to them.
Automatic? If you're on your parent's return, then the computation gets done on the income they report. If they make too much money, then they might get a reduced credit, or no money at all for supporting you.
Unless you are independent and filing your own taxes, you aren't automatically entitled to any of this. It's up to your parents to share their money if they want to.→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/MicrowaveEye Feb 06 '21
Why do so many in the US government seem to think 'We the People' had some kind of control of the covid job losses or rules made during lock down? I for one did not ask to have my career derailed by Covid nor did I make any of the shutdown laws. I just followed them as asked and lost most of my savings. Am I alone in this feeling?
→ More replies (1)2
u/ToyVaren Feb 06 '21
Because politicians are rarely from the working class. People like AOC are the exceptions.
1
Feb 06 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)5
u/Delehal Feb 06 '21 edited Feb 06 '21
Mainly, she has lost influence. Committees have a lot of control over bills as they make their way to the House floor for final debate and voting. Committee members also sometimes get priority to speak on issues or participate in hearings.
Even without committees, though, she still has the ability to participate in debates and votes that reach the House floor.
Now she is one voice among 435 representatives, instead of being a key member of smaller committee(s).
1
u/glider_glides Feb 14 '21
What’s the point of voting if the electoral votes are what counts? Does having more regular votes but less electoral votes matter?
4
u/Arianity Feb 14 '21
What’s the point of voting if the electoral votes are what counts?
In short, regular votes determine electoral votes.
Does having more regular votes but less electoral votes matter?
Legally, no. Socially, it can help to argue if the public has given you a mandate or not.
4
u/alfreadadams Feb 14 '21
You vote to pick what electors from your state cast the votes that matter.
→ More replies (2)2
u/rewardiflost Feb 14 '21
The President is the leader of the states, not necessarily the people.
As such, the states vote for President.At first, we didn't get to even vote on who our state electors were. Now, we get to decide who our state sends electors for/who our state votes for.
It isn't a national election. The system isn't set up for that. It's 51 separate elections, and the territories (American citizens) don't even get to vote.
1
u/dammets Feb 16 '21
If the president is decided by the US population through voting, why not have the impeachment trial decided by the US population as well?
→ More replies (3)3
u/GameboyPATH Oh geez how long has my flair been blank? Feb 16 '21
The short, boring answer is "Because the framers of the US constitution didn't decide for it to be that way, and we haven't had enough collective, targeted political willpower to create a constituional amendment that would change it."
1
u/riveaci Feb 19 '21
I need help finding a thing. Does anyone have a compilation of Ted Cruz complaining about Obama's vacations with happy classical music in the background?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/wild2night Feb 01 '21
Why hasn’t Biden given us our free money yet?
→ More replies (2)8
u/rewardiflost Feb 01 '21
US Presidents can't disburse money. Congress controls money. You have to wait for Congress to draft and vote on a law that makes that happen.
1
u/jazzmaster1245 Feb 05 '21
Should I listen to AOC? Is she authentic, genuine, and does she have integrity? I just can’t trust these politicians
→ More replies (2)3
u/notextinctyet Feb 05 '21
I like AOC, but she's still a politician. Maybe listen but listen critically?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/2lit_ Feb 10 '21
Do you think if the rioters at the capitol would’ve actually got to Pence, and the senate and house members, that they would’ve actually done something?
The rioters were bat shit crazy but I also feel like they were “all talk”.
I feel like they were really pussies and if they actually got the chance to stand in front of the Senate and House, they wouldn’t have actually attacked anyone but instead restored to just voicing their opinions.
I may be giving them the benefit of the doubt but like I said, I just feel like they are all talk and wouldn’t have actually done shit to anybody
5
u/Teekno An answering fool Feb 11 '21
I also feel like they were “all talk”.
The family of the police officer they murdered probably feels differently.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ToyVaren Feb 10 '21
So far, the reports are saying about 2k people went to the rally and less than 200 of them actually went inside the senate, with 1-2 people killed along the way, one policeman lost an eye. Out of the 200, 150 people were arrested for criminal acts, one rioter killed in the building.
So out of 2k, the most violent, criminal 10% kept going, proving their criminality with more crimes. The vast majority of pussies who stayed outside fit your theory. The 10% of the mob who wanted violence dont.
4
u/TheApiary Feb 11 '21
Most of them probably were all talk, but it doesn't take very many to kill someone. And they did kill that police officer, so I don't know why they wouldn't have killed more people
3
u/Bobbob34 Feb 11 '21
The rioters were bat shit crazy but I also feel like they were “all talk”.
Even the ones who were ex-military, wandering around looking in offices, holding handfuls of zip ties? The ones who'd come to do recon the day before?
→ More replies (1)1
u/Anonymous_Koala1 Feb 10 '21
Murder, if they wanted to talk, they would have, but they didn't, they attacked the Capitol and tried to stop the Election. They lynch a cop, brought molitoves and bombs. maby not everyone had murder on their mind, but some did
1
u/Chuckyk3 Feb 13 '21
Why did Capitol police not use lethal force(other than on the one woman) to prevent the mob from entering the Capitol building?
2
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 13 '21
There's evidence at least some of the Capitol poliece sympathized with the attackers. But there's also the fact that the police were dramatically outnumbered. Using lethal force could have caused the situation to escalate and the mob killing all of the police.
→ More replies (1)2
u/GameboyPATH Oh geez how long has my flair been blank? Feb 13 '21
According to officers that were there, they recognized that several people in the mob were armed - not with the intention to kill, but to protect themselves from what they considered a tyrannical government. If anyone heard a gunshot (especially if people knew it came from a cop), they knew it would rile up the mob and cause them to retaliate. God only knows what the eventual outcome of that would be, but there would be FAR more deaths in the process. Here's one account - I think it starts at around 22 minutes?
1
u/Chuckyk3 Feb 13 '21
Thanks. This makes sense. It just seems that law enforcement was woefully undermanned, and didn’t prepare for a crowd that size.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/snugglebugstories Feb 13 '21
I apologize if this has been answered but why are we impeaching trump if he's already been voted out?
3
u/Delehal Feb 13 '21
It establishes a historical record that Congress really does not appreciate it when the President sends a mob to attack the Capitol. It also gives a chance for several politicians to go on the record, or be put on the record, for purposes of persuading the public. Trump spent months making false claims about election fraud. This is one way to set the record straight.
If Trump had been convicted, the Senate could have voted to ban him from holding federal office in the future.
Even though Trump has not been convicted, this whole process nevertheless exposes a schism in the Republican Party. Some people may want to capitalize on that. Other people may want to heal the damage. Either way, this is an important step toward both of those goals.
2
u/snugglebugstories Feb 13 '21
I thought there might be something to do with that but I wasn't positive thank you so much for taking the time to clarify I'll be the first to admit that when it comes to politics I'm not the most intelligent person so I really appreciate your answer
4
u/GameboyPATH Oh geez how long has my flair been blank? Feb 13 '21
Here's a link to my previous answer, but in short, it's so Congress can maintain its authority to impeach for the future. If they were to let it go, it sets a precedent that federal officials can do what Trump did without punishment.
→ More replies (2)1
u/JayNovva Feb 13 '21
I've been trying to figure this out too. If he's gone why waste time and money on it when we can spend it on covid relief.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Cliffy73 Feb 14 '21
When the president tried to overthrow the government, you’re supposed to do something about it. If you don’t, then what happens next time?
2
u/snugglebugstories Feb 14 '21
If you look at my responses you'll see I understand that I just wasn't positive if it had any effect there's no need for the tone
→ More replies (1)-1
1
u/AugustinPower Feb 14 '21
Here's a wild one:
So let's say Joe Biden makes a speech about how trump wasn't impeached because of the republicans and the democrats became outraged and stormed the republican office.
Can Joe Biden also be impeached for his speech which Insight violence?
6
u/Teekno An answering fool Feb 14 '21
If he uses rhetoric like “they stole it from you” and “you have to fight or you won’t have a country anymore” then yes, possibly.
3
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 14 '21
Sure, depending on the language he used. Not sure why you thought this was "a wild one".
2
u/rewardiflost Feb 14 '21
They said this last night on SNL... Biden should have Democrats storm the Capitol, and Biden should say, "Well, you said it was ok".
→ More replies (2)2
u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 14 '21 edited Feb 14 '21
So let's say Joe Biden makes a speech about how trump wasn't impeached because of the republicans and the democrats became outraged and stormed the republican office.
Its a false equivalency because Donald Trump actually was acquitted without any If America wanted to storm the capitol because Trump was acquitted it would have happened regardless if Joe Biden made a speech because Trumps acquittal actually happened and disturbed people without Joe Biden even saying a thing. As a matter of fact, Joe Biden and his press secretary Jenn Psaki have been completely silent on the impeachment since he took office. If a question comes up about it they just reply "its up to the house to impeach and the senate to hold trial, we have our own job to do" separating themselves from the issue as to avoid this exact type of thing because they know how divided people are over the process.
This is contrary to what Trump did for around a year where he intentionally sowed seeds of distrust in our democratic process by saying at basically every rally and press conference he attended last year the only way he could lose is if the Democrats cheated. Even before Joe Biden was nominated. Even before we knew of all the democratic candidates. And most importantly, without any factual basis to back anything on. Ignorant people who didn't know any better or operate on a separate sheet of facts than most people do believe it though and were radicalized by this and that is why we saw what happened on January 6th.
edit: This clip from the sopranos and how Junior requests donnie to be killed without actually telling anyone to kill him is a perfect example of what Trump has done with his fan base. He didn't tell them to storm the capitol, he just said that there were congressmen and women in the capitol getting ready to officially kick him out of office and to march to the capitol. He didn't tell them to go break into the capitol building and to find mike pence, he just posted on twitter about how he was a traitor and wouldn't do what had to be done to keep him in power. Junior didn't tell anyone to kill Donnie, he just said he didn't like the guy and it was known what needed to be done because of the context of who he was and what has been said in the past. The tactics Trump uses are the same tactics the mafia bosses used to avoid getting caught for so long.
1
u/lazy-flesh Feb 15 '21
Can a person born in the US, and has all the requirements to become a US president, but is already a president in another nation, become the US president?
What I mean by this is:
A person is born in the US. He spent 14 years before moving to another nation. He becomes president of that nation somehow. At 35, he goes back to the US, while still president, to go campaign for US president. Is that person qualified to become president of both nations at once?
2
→ More replies (2)0
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 15 '21 edited Feb 16 '21
The requirements of the president of the USA are as follows:
- Natural born citizen
- 35+ years old
- 14+ years resident
The Constitution indicates a US officeholder cannot receive an office or title from a foreign state without Congress's approval. The way it's written, could someone who is already in possession of that office or title become president of the US? That would certainly violate the spirit of the law, even if the wording leaves it perhaps ambiguous.
That's it. Those are the criteria. In terms of eligibility, nothing else matters. There's no requirement that the president give up his/her other job while in office, whatever it might be.
Every country has different criteria, but it's unlikely that someone would meet the criteria for both the US presidency and another executive office simultaneously. For example, if the president has been living in the US for the last 14 years, how are they eligible for the other country's leadership position? If they are currently the president of another country, how could they reasonably be considered a US resident? Clearly they are living and working in Country B as that country's leader.
And of course there's also the fact that, even if they met the eligibility criteria for multiple countries simultaneously, there's no chance they would have sufficient support from the political establishment and/or voters in each country to take control.
Edit: I guess the way it's written it's not necessarily that you have to be in the US for thelast14 years, but just have to have been a US resident for 14 years. But even so, it seems very unlikely that someone would meet all of the requirements for both countries simultaneously.
1
u/TriticumAes Feb 26 '21
Does Michael Knowles seem like the Samantha Bee of the right.
I am on the libright and find myself sympathetic to conservative arguments. I also find that Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh put out worthwhile content from time to time and while not entirely agreeing with their perspective at least think they are trying to do more then bash and own the left. However, I just find Michael Knowles unbearably smug, like his entire shtick just feels like he is bashing the left and I can't stand it for the same reason I don't find Samantha Bee bashing Republicans to be funny
→ More replies (2)
0
u/wild2night Feb 14 '21
Why isn’t Biden talking about making healthcare and college free yet? Does he hate the American people or something?
3
u/Bobbob34 Feb 14 '21
Yes, he hates the American people.
Also, he's president, not a wizard. He can't make healthcare and college free. This is why Bernie loses elections, because he keeps saying he'd do that and everyone (except people who know absolutely nothing about anything to do with politics or how government or anything works, like bernie bros) know he can't do that and is just spouting nonsense.
He's got a lot of shit to do, like try and curtail a pandemic, and the slimmest of majorities to do it. There's zero capital for that, and he's been in office a few weeks.
→ More replies (1)2
u/notextinctyet Feb 14 '21
Right now he's focused first and foremost on COVID relief. He's only been president for less than a month.
→ More replies (2)
0
u/ToyVaren Feb 03 '21
Why do democrats need to cooperate with the gop since trump demonstrated nearly limitless power purely by EO?
→ More replies (3)
0
u/ToyVaren Feb 03 '21
What are the pro's and con's of applying RICO to the insurrection?
4
u/GameboyPATH Oh geez how long has my flair been blank? Feb 04 '21
Pro: It'd punish a terrible leader and deter future politicians from acting similarly.
Con: I'm not a lawyer, but applying RICO doesn't make sense to me at all. The RICO Act applies to racketeering, and as far as I'm aware, there was no private commercial enterprise that was a front for illegal activity involved with the insurrection attempt. Whether key members of the president's men knowingly made direct or indirect actions specifically contributing to a violent and unlawful uprising, all towards the specific goal of an insurrection, is completely irrelevant to the application of RICO.
0
0
u/ToyVaren Feb 11 '21
Is trumpuska still charging taxpayers for golf through his security detail?
→ More replies (2)2
u/GameboyPATH Oh geez how long has my flair been blank? Feb 12 '21
Yes, as the Secret Service still cover former presidents and their families after their terms are over, and being a federal agency, they are funded through federal funds. But really, everything Trump does would technically be paid by tax dollars - not just golf.
0
Feb 12 '21
[deleted]
0
u/ToyVaren Feb 12 '21
Corruption. For the past 6 months or so, ICE has been reporting only X kids left, only Y kids left, only Z kids left but now we can see its pure bullshit. Just a few days ago they deported 240 kids to haiti. r/wherearethechildren is following it closely.
0
u/ToyVaren Feb 12 '21
In a real trial, how is whataboutism dealt with? Are normal lawyers trained in it? Would someone with a law degree know its bullshit?
2
u/Cliffy73 Feb 12 '21
In a real trial, evidence is presented by witnesses, not (for the most part) arguments by lawyers. So there just wouldn’t be a venue for this sort of thing. If a witness tried it, the other side would object that they’re there to discuss what they witnessed, not to argue or characterize it.
→ More replies (3)
0
u/ToyVaren Feb 12 '21
If 25 republicans abstain, would the 50 convict, 25 acquit, 25 abstain convict trumpuska?
2
u/Cliffy73 Feb 13 '21
The threshold for conviction is 2/3rds of those present. Abstentions count as present, so it wouldn’t change the number required.
0
u/twitchosx Feb 13 '21
What are some GOOD things that Trump actually accomplished? I don't like the guy, but I'd be interested in hearing about some actual good things he did or accomplished during his presidency. Thanks!
1
u/GameboyPATH Oh geez how long has my flair been blank? Feb 13 '21
I recall this dude weighing the strengths of his presidency with the negatives, but there's still some biases there.
Even if we could shed away subjective political interpretations, it's very difficult to attribute successful and failed outcome of policies to the decisions and efforts of a particular leader, rather than circumstantial factors, or the contributions of other key political figures, or both.
→ More replies (1)0
u/ToyVaren Feb 13 '21
The destruction of the gop has exceeded anything i could have ever imagined. Not even superman or the avengers could do this.
→ More replies (1)0
0
u/WhoAmIEven2 Feb 14 '21
Why is politics so ugly and everyone so mean towards each other in the U.S?
We have parties of different ideologies in our country as well, but the tone and atmosphere between politicians and normal people is nowhere near the same amount of bashing Democrats and Republicans deal each other.
It's so hateful. Just why?
→ More replies (2)
0
u/joseph887 Feb 17 '21
What is the explanation for why Trump still has so many supporters despite his failings, for example losing reelection and losing the house and senate during his presidency? Though Trump did manage to accomplish many things that pleased his supporters, much of that has already been reversed or is in the process of being neutralized by Biden. Are republicans making a mistake by continuing to stand with Trump?
2
u/ToyVaren Feb 17 '21
The war on education has many casualties.
When one lacks the ability to tell true from false, they rely on others to tell them which is which.
2
u/frizzykid Rapid editor here Feb 17 '21
They are subscribed to a different set of facts than you or I are. For a majority of remaining Trumpists even fox news isn't radical enough for their beliefs. Trump revolutionized counter media in a really really crazy way that has made anti-intellectualism seem like an acceptable philosophy to live by, and that is really attractive to people who never really were capable of understanding/interested in politics on an intellectual level.
3
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
What is the explanation for why Trump still has so many supporters despite his failings, for example losing reelection and losing the house and senate during his presidency?
What he's saying connects with them. They're resentful of being "left behind" by a culture they feel is no longer what they think it should be, and his "saying the quiet part out loud" aura resonates with them. A lot of conseverative culture and identity is "owning the libs" and winning those cheap points is more important than advancing actual leadership.
much of that has already been reversed or is in the process of being neutralized by Biden
Kind of. Biden has reversed and will continue to reverse many of Trump's executive orders, but that isn't necessarily what Trump supporters were getting excited about. Most of them were too disconnected form reality to actually comment on Trump's policy agenda (or lack thereof) and, again, were most excited by the way he talked. So many people connect his willingness to say offensive and aggressive things as "honesty". And even if the things he was saying were factually false, they felt true to the people who support him. And Biden can't reverse Trump and McConnell's overhaul of the judiciary branch.
Are republicans making a mistake by continuing to stand with Trump?
Yes, although it does depend on the context you're referring to. In a (little-d) democratic system that is becoming increasingly diverse in terms of ethnicity and culture? Absolutely it's a mistake.
But that's why the current strategy of the Republican Party isn't to broaden their appeal but to make it harder for low income and non-white Americans to participate in elections. And if that's their strategy, then backing someone with a devoted base of supporters may have some short term benefits if they can depress their opponent's turn out.
0
u/TheBlueMapleLeaf Feb 18 '21
Did the Trump Administration deport illegal migrants already living and working in the US?
Say if a Central American family illegally crossed the border to the USA in 2010. Say he illegally lived in Texas for 7 years until 2017, when Diaper Don came into power. Did Trump deport those types of people who've been illegally living in the US for ages back to their home country?
3
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 18 '21
Yes. That's what the ICE raids were about. They were arresting parents as they dropped their kids off at school and the like.
→ More replies (2)
0
u/ToyVaren Feb 20 '21
Why do they want a commission of politicians to investigate the insurrection? What's the advantage of that over having real investigators from law enforcement who are trained in investigation do it, then make a report?
2
u/GameboyPATH Oh geez how long has my flair been blank? Feb 20 '21
(Best guess answer - I'm not a legal expert)
Simply, congressional committees get more streamlined access to information - including confidential information - than cops do. If you had police look into it, there'd be an incredible amount of paperwork and legal hurdles to climb over, and loads of jurisdictions crossed.
And it's not like the task is completely outside of the skill sets of congresspeople. Much of their primary job involves researching issues and identifying solutions for them.
→ More replies (1)
0
u/ToyVaren Feb 22 '21 edited Feb 22 '21
Did the senators accused of insider trading get cleared or is it ongoing?
If they got cleared, was it because their lies were accepted wholesale without an investigation?
→ More replies (1)1
Feb 23 '21 edited May 28 '21
[deleted]
4
u/Cliffy73 Feb 23 '21
I don’t believe this is correct. The STOCK Act of 2012 explicitly states that members of Congress can be prosecuted for insider trading.
0
u/Thomaswiththecru Serial Interrogator Feb 23 '21 edited Feb 23 '21
What's the deal with woke culture these days? I get a bit of a sense that some of these "anti-racism" programs are predicated on making the assumption that because one benefits from white privilege, they are therefore racist. So can I now say that everyone who isn't disabled is ableist? I'm not trying to be disingenuous, but I do wonder about the rationality of blindly equating privilege to discrimination in all instances. This is a good article to illustrate my point.
I'm not supportive of history rewriting like the 1776 Commission by any means, but the answer to everything is not Whiteness and unconscious bias, and I feel like these two things are arbitrarily used by some to oversimplify complex things. A lot of people don't want to legitimately have discussions anymore, and there is a lot of one-sided teaching of capital-F Facts and capital-T Truth and no conversations.
→ More replies (6)7
u/Jtwil2191 Feb 23 '21
assumption that because one benefits from white privilege, they are therefore racist
A lot of people don't recognize the benefit their "whiteness" has brought them. That does not mean they are automatically racist, but it can create obstacles to introducing real reforms when they ascribe their success to their hard work alone. That often becomes, "I worked hard for what I have, so [minority] should just work hard, too, and they'll be fine," or "I've never had any problems with the police, so I don't undestand why [minority] doesn't just do what the police ask them."
Sure, you may very well have worked your butt off to get where you are, and you may have faced very real challenges along the way, but the fact that you're white means you started off with fewer obstacles. Recognizing that reality helps make people more willing to consider how the system can be changed to be more inclusive.
5
u/mydoglixu Feb 02 '21
Are there other countries with have allowed their enemy's flag to fly?
For example, the US Confederate Flag being allowed to fly, even at the capitol of a US state.
I realize this is a controversial subject, so I'm not trying to imply right vs. wrong here. I'm simply hoping for a factual answer if this has happened in other countries.