Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
President Trump promised to fill the appeals courts with “my judges.” They have formed a nearly united phalanx to defend his agenda from legal challenges.
When you see a breakdown like this it makes it clear that judges are just a different form of politician and the law is nearly entirely corrupted.
ehhh, some classic jokes:
what do you call an elephant crossed with a rhino?
elifino
what do you call a lawyer crossed with a politician?
Your honor.
I think by now we ran the test of people being impartial, and it didn't fucking work. Time to make all judges elected only.
yeah elections have been proven to be tremendously successful in getting great politicians into office! /s
Just skip the repeated failures to reform these doomed institutions and abolish all of this shit
Lol I wish we could have one centralized authority that would unilaterally make all of the decisions for us. I think the executive branch would be the best place to start, and instead of voting, we can just let the current guy decide what he feels best.
here's a crazy idea but what if nobody is in charge and we all just collectively decide what we want through a system of consensus?
That's what voting is.
It's the closest we can have to a fair shot at it.
nah it's not, we can do better, don't settle for abusive relationships!
I mean, there's plenty I'd change with our voting system and even who we vote on and the power they can hold, but voting is non-negotiable. Are you saying there's a different form of consensus than voting?
Consensus decision making is different from democratic voting, yes, but the process is more democratic than simply voting.
As far as I am concerned, representative democracy has been tested and failed spectacularly.
We need something else, for sure.
I'm all ears on a new system, even aside from representative democracy, but there are problems with just putting all things to a popular vote as well.
I think we're talking about the same thing just using different words, care to elaborate?
yep, popular vote is just dictatorship of the majority, so that's pretty much a non-starter, too
i hope you don't mind too much if I just drop a wikipedia link - sorry, I should be sleeping rn. check out the consensus based decision making article for more details on how it kinda works.
When the problem is that your jusges are too political, making it more political seems like the wrong move.
I mean it's the same result, just more removed from accountability and decision making directly. Same amount of political, more direct decision making. And we've got to get rid of the whole lifetime appointments bullshit. How that ever seemed like a good idea is beyond me
But you can't expect me to vote for a Dem candidate if they aren't perfect!
/s
Should just say "11 to 1", or "over 11 to 1". That mess of a ratio isn't worth the fraction of accuracy it represents.
The president’s appointees voted to allow his policies to take effect 133 times and voted against them only 12 times.
They're using the actual numbers, why would they reduce?
Ratios (eg 'x to y') are used to simplify data. If they're just going to use the numbers as they are, then just say 133 out of 145. As is, it's just a mess that most people won't bother trying to figure out or internalize.
it's not a ratio, though, it's like when they say a supreme court decision passed "5 to 4", it means five in favor, four against