Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I disagree. My view is that the US suffers under party politics, and what you are voting for is largely the party itself rather than the individual. Obviously the president has a lot more power (too much more) than the rest of government, but none-the-less, he is beholden to his party to sustain his position and enact his policies. Trump demonstrates that clearly.

Personally, I am not a Hillary Clinton fan, and it is an unfortunate consequence of our current primary system that the DNC seems determined to do a re-run of her campaign in 2020 with Biden on the ballot, but in any case, voting Green or for Bernie doesn't solve anything. No candidate is going to be perfect, but in a system where there are only two realistic choices, one should choose one of those two.

The intra-party arguments should be fought out in the primaries (and before); the general election is entirely about getting the best option that is available.

This time around, Bernie is again screwing things up. If he would simply admit that he is too old to be president, and merge his campaign with Liz Warren's, the result would be a solid majority in the democratic party for a good, electable candidate. Instead, the democrats are doing the same stupid stuff that the GOP did last time around, allowing one well-funded power broker to gradually shred the other candidates, one by one, until only he is left.

It's gonna be Pence in 2020 and everybody had better get themselves prepared to live in a theocracy.

by asdf on Tue Dec 10th, 2019 at 06:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Choose between Hitler or Stalin? I'll pass.
In general you are right that no candidate is perfect, but there are limits. If both candidates are clearly unacceptable it is a crime on the body politic to vote for either.

If you don't like the analogy in the first sentence, thry this:
Vote for Caesar or Pompey? No thanks, I'll pass.

by StillInTheWilderness on Wed Dec 11th, 2019 at 02:18:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. I felt that Trump should be impeached for many things such as imposing tariffs which is a violation of Congressional powers and failure to spend funds authorized by Congress, diverting them instead to the stupid wall. Then I learned that Congress explicitly and voluntarily gave up those powers and let the President assume what the Constitution says are Congressional powers.
So it is Congress that should be impeached for dereliction of duty and aiding and abetting violation of the Constitutional separation of powers.
It can be argued that in the modern age there is no time to ask Congress to declare war in the face of an attack. But no way can it be argued that there isn't time for Congress to vote on tariffs.
by StillInTheWilderness on Wed Dec 11th, 2019 at 02:25:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Retaliation for a nuclear attack is one thing. But, in all other cases there must always be time to get the approval of congress for a war.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Dec 11th, 2019 at 07:07:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
17. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?

Disapprove 66 81 51 68 70 63 67 70

Incumbent win rate for each state
In the 2018 general election, an average of 92 percent of incumbents nationwide won re-election. That rate is not atypical (1964-2018). Save that date.

According to one theory of congressional stagnation, 1900-1924 average rate of change was 53.9, and 1926-1950 is was 56.1. Explanation of inelasticity of demand, or preference, for incumbent candidates does not explicitly factor legislated delegation of constitutional authorities such as war powers or expansive stimulus regulation to the executive in the periods observed. However, the greatest common factor of summarized reasons is "power of the purse" vested in the house of representatives In other words, both voters and representatives value control and disbursement of federal treasury more than any other congressional function. The relation of an incumbent to constituents competing for grants and loans or bankruptcy protection perforce is patronage.

Conversely, Gilens and Page (not that one, the other one) adopt factor analysis to reify the cube root of electoral administration by legislatures. Ex post facto voter preference for any elected candidate is expressed as "a quadratic logistic regression technique to estimate the opinions of respondents" about four traditions of republican governance. From this calculus, the pair infer, ordinary, median or unelected, citizens reasonably "have little or no independent influence on policy at all" except, oddly enough, when they incorporate as "business" or trade associations, interest groups, PACs, and so forth to guarantee re-election of ...incumbents who patronize them. Whatevs.

The salient point is, incumbents have shirked responsibility for authorities they delegated to the office of the president. And they and the majority of their constituents only resent that to the extent the president and legislative error disrupts free cash flow from treasury to a hinterlands. I can't speak for the British, but US American political posturing is not more sophisticated than that.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Dec 11th, 2019 at 10:46:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series