Kamala Harris Election Campaign

[jimbob]

This demonstrates again why the US Constitution is undemocratic crap. And another reason to abolish the US Senate. A bill can run the gauntlet of passing through the committees in the House, get passed on the floor of the House, and 41 percent of Senate representing 30 percent of the US can prevent it from ever being voted on on the Senate floor.

There are worse systems of upper houses For example, the House of Lords.

I have seen it argued that the US system is very similar to an elected version of the 18th century British system with an elected monarch and elected peers, and with those two pilates of the state having the levels of power that they had relative to the Commons that they had in the 18th century. Whereas in the UK, the Commons grew far more powerful.

But yes, giving Montana and California the same number of Senators is only better than the British approach of appointed peers

 

[acbytesla]

There are worse systems of upper houses For example, the House of Lords.

I have seen it argued that the US system is very similar to an elected version of the 18th century British system with an elected monarch and elected peers, and with those two pilates of the state having the levels of power that they had relative to the Commons that they had in the 18th century. Whereas in the UK, the Commons grew far more powerful.

But yes, giving Montana and California the same number of Senators is only better than the British approach of appointed peers

The US Congress was modeled after the British Parliament. It was never meant by the founding fathers to be democratic.

 

[Orphia Nay]

On Twitter 40 minutes ago:

Kamala Harris:

"We will work with builders and developers to construct three million new homes and rentals.

"And we will help first-time buyers get their foot in the door with $25,000 down payment assistance."

https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1839046351541178710

 

[dudalb]

Your endless faith in the benevolence of bureaucracy is touching.

 

[dudalb]

This demonstrates again why the US Constitution is undemocratic crap. And another reason to abolish the US Senate. A bill can run the gauntlet of passing through the committees in the House, get passed on the floor of the House, and 41 percent of Senate representing 30 percent of the US can prevent it from ever being voted on on the Senate floor.

Those are rules set up by the House, not in the COnstituion.
But at least you are honest in admitting you want to get rid of the Constution.
Good luck with selling that to most of the American People.

 

[dudalb]

And altogether different in politics. Gene was as liberal as they come.

ANd he was right in being a bit afriad of the power of an massive, unelected bureaucy to grab power.

 

[Stacyhs]

On Twitter 40 minutes ago:

Kamala Harris:

"We will work with builders and developers to construct three million new homes and rentals.

"And we will help first-time buyers get their foot in the door with $25,000 down payment assistance."

https://x.com/kamalaharris/status/1839046351541178710

The down payment is the biggest hurdle for most first-time home buyers. Without the Veterans 10% down payment, my husband and I would not have been able to buy our first home.

 

[psionl0]

This demonstrates again why the US Constitution is undemocratic crap. And another reason to abolish the US Senate. A bill can run the gauntlet of passing through the committees in the House, get passed on the floor of the House, and 41 percent of Senate representing 30 percent of the US can prevent it from ever being voted on on the Senate floor.

When are you going to start a separate thread on the Senate? I have lost count of the number of threads that you have hijacked with your "abolish the Senate" spiel.

 

[acbytesla]

When are you going to start a separate thread on the Senate? I have lost count of the number of threads that you have hijacked with your "abolish the Senate" spiel.

I'm just following the conversation. I neither brought up the EC or the Senate in this thread. Others brought up and complained about the Senate and the fillibuster. When Senate rules have such a detrimental effect on democracy, I am compelled to pose the idea that we don't need the Senate.

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh by the way. We're all following clipsofkamala on Instagram, right?

 

[DallasDad]

Not at all, Arth. What is it, and why should anyone look at it? (I don't use Instagram for anything.)

 

[acbytesla]

Not at all, Arth. What is it, and why should anyone look at it? (I don't use Instagram for anything.)

Maybe you can see that she's normal. As opposed to batcrap insane.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not at all, Arth. What is it, and why should anyone look at it? (I don't use Instagram for anything.)

It's an instagram (and tiktok) account consisting of clips of Kamala (the clue is in the name ), being normal and doing normal things - smiling, laughing, petting dogs - the sort of things that you never see Trump doing.

It's not affiliated with the campaign, if you're wondering.

Instagram isn't poison. You can look at it without signing up.

 

[DallasDad]

I see a list of videos on that page, but none will play unless I sign up.

 

[Delvo]

This demonstrates again why the US Constitution is undemocratic crap.

The constitution was written by people who, mistakenly, thought that elected officials would not have any bad actors or a signficant number of bad actors.

That's not entirely true. They very much expected bad actors. They built lots of checks and balances into the system.

They expected specific kinds of bad actors.

They never accounted for the specific kind of "Trump Bad."

I think they well anticipated a Bad Trump, and have checks and balances built into the system that would handle him well.

What they didn't account for was Bad Republican Senators, who wouldn't convict his impeachment, Bad Republicans in general who would continue to support him and, especially, Bad Republican voters who would keep voting for him.

The "checks & balances" are there to handle conflict between the branches, not between parties. It made sense to look at politics that way at the time. For centuries, British and other European political history had been dominated by conflicts between legislatures, courts, kings & lower nobles, and churches. I don't know how they could've anticipated back then that the defining units of political conflict would end up being parties as we now know them instead of those.

 

[arthwollipot]

I see a list of videos on that page, but none will play unless I sign up.

Huh. Apparently you are correct. My mistake.

Can you try this?
https://www.tiktok.com/@clipsofkamala/

I mean, unless you've got something else to do. I don't use TikTok much but I tried following that account and got an error.

ETA: I worked out what the problem was.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sure, but what's the point, exactly?

Consider the interaction in its basic form:

"If you try to bring this matter to a vote, we'll fight it every step of the way."

"Well if you feel that way about it, let's bring it back to the negotiating table and see if we can work out a compromise."

That's the rule. It's two rules, actually: Everyone has the option of fighting a matter tooth and nail. And everyone has the option of going back to the negotiating table instead.

There's also the option of just forcing a contentious item over the objections of the minority. According to the current rules, this is the most difficult option to take. I think that's as it should be. I think the filibuster, and resulting inaction, is a much better rule than its opposite would be. Its opposite is what you want. I am deeply mistrustful of anyone who says forcing contentious issues on people who don't want them is a good way to govern.

It's a majority. It's democracy. The result is a government that doesn't govern. Let them pass the bills. If the people hate them they will throw them out.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

The constitution was written by people who, mistakenly, thought that elected officials would not have any bad actors or a signficant number of bad actors.

It's actually much simpler than that, they didn't want the plebs to have even the faintest sniff at power. Otherwise crazy laws may have been passed, like abolishing slavery or setting up a progressive tax system or worker's rights.

 

[Darat]

Back to talking about the election in 2024 please, the discussion about what some blokes who wore wigs, high heels, stockings and makeup in the 18th century thought belongs in a different thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Tero]

"I just don't know. How will taxing the rich help me? I don't have kids! She is only giving money to families.I think I'll pass on this election."

Trump has proposed lowering the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15% and pledged to permanently extend tax cuts passed during his presidency. Harris, meanwhile, has proposed raising them to 28%, framing that decision in terms of fairness, and laying out a limit for those who should not worry about higher taxes.

“First of all, when it relates to anybody making less than $400,000-a-year, your taxes will not go up,” Harris said. “Your taxes will not go up. And, in fact, under my plan taxes for 100 million Americans will actually be cut, including $6,000 a year for young couples for the first year of their child’s life.”

https://news.yahoo.com/6-takeaways-...interview-with-stephanie-ruhle-003501229.html
Trump response:

“This week he had ‘dumb as a rock’ bimbo Stephanie Ruhle, from MSDNC, on the show, along with a Trump hating loser, Bret Stephens, who seemed totally confused and unsure of himself, very much like Maher himself,” Trump wrote.