source_id
int64 1
4.64M
| question
stringlengths 0
28.4k
| response
stringlengths 0
28.8k
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
9,698 | A Condorcet method is an election system where voters rate their candidates in order of preference. As an example, for candidates A B and C, a valid vote can be [A > B > C], [C > B > A], [B > A > C] etc. The vote then leads to chained preference problem which can be solved through several methods. In the above example, we have B > A > C (first two votes sums in A = B = C). Some of the votes are impossible to solve "perfectly", as known as Condorcet paradox , simply described as cyclic preferences. Each particular Condorcet method offer a different answer to this problem, but no matter what method chosen, if it respects Condorcet criteria it offers much advantages over classical votes: Since it rates all the candidates in a single turn, a single vote can be cast to elect a winner. This encourages being a good compromise candidate. For example, in a triangular scenario, the middle man can win without majority of first intention votes. This does not harm diversity of proposals. If two candidates A1 and A2 have similar opinion group, their supporter can elect A1 > A2 > B > C and A2 > A1 > B > C. If the opinion group is the majority, A1 or A2 can be elected without majority of first intention votes. It can be used as an exclusion vote, voting "against" some candidate or group It simply is a more powerful expression vote, allowing more analysis and involving more the voter in the outcome Despite this, I know no large scale implementation of any Condorcet method. Although some of them are complex and require (small) computing for resolution, this really shouldn't be a problem. What other factors are against the Condorcet method in real world elections? | There are lots of arguments which could be made against a voting system, like being too complicated to understand for the average voter or requiring so much work to fill out that many voters will start filling in preferences arbitrary. But the most likely barrier to changes of voting systems is that in most legislations, those people who could change the systems got into their positions through the existing system. Changing the system would very likely make it less likely that they (or people with similar agendas) get re-elected, so they won't be very motivated to do this. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9698",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7034/"
]
} |
9,785 | Kurt Gödel seems to have proven that this is possible, according to the Wikipedia article: On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship. Einstein and Morgenstern were concerned that their friend's unpredictable behavior might jeopardize his application. Fortunately, the judge turned out to be Phillip Forman, who knew Einstein and had administered the oath at Einstein's own citizenship hearing. Everything went smoothly until Forman happened to ask Gödel if he thought a dictatorship like the Nazi regime could happen in the U.S. Gödel then started to explain his discovery to Forman. Forman understood what was going on, cut Gödel off, and moved the hearing on to other questions and a routine conclusion.[16][17] But I can't find anything about the details of Gödel's argument in the cited sources. | I found a paper on this subject on the Social Science Research Network. This paper discusses what is known of Gödel's supposed Constitutional loophole, and proposes and discusses a number of hypotheses as to what that loophole might be. The first thing to note is the lack of concrete evidence as to what this loophole is. Though several accounts indicate that Gödel believed he found a loophole, none seem to contain any details as to what that loophole was, none were transcribed around the time of his study of Constitutional Law, and many seem to disagree on minor details. Nevertheless, we can examine the proposed loopholes, and determine if any of them are worth our concern. The author of the paper proposes that Gödel believed that the Constitution permitted dictatorship through amendment; specifically, that by amending the rules of amendment in the Constitution, Congress and the states could make future amendments trivially easy to implement. This could allow the US to become a dictatorship (or otherwise transform its government) very easily. This "loophole", it seems to me at least, is obvious, and not particularly threatening. Though it does mean that Congress and the States, through supermajority, could push the United States in the direction of a dictatorship, the ability to change our form of government is the plain purpose of Article V. There is no reason to think that the Constitution would only allow good amendments; indeed, many of the amendments that existed at the time of Gödel's citizenship test (in particular, the 2nd and 11th Amendments) are highly controversial. Furthermore, as the article suggests, such problems may not even be theoretically solvable. Any clause that would prohibit the amendment of the rules of amendment could itself be amended. And ultimately, if enough people want to change their form of government, they could simply ignore the Constitution and establish a new one. This was, after all, what happened with the Articles of Confederation. Changes to the Constitution requiring approximately this level of coordination hardly count as "loopholes". The author then proceeds to discuss more mundane controversies of Constitutional law, and dismisses the notion that these were the kinds of controversies of which Gödel was thinking. Indeed, these potential "problems" hardly count as loopholes, especially when it is often vehemently argued that these "problems" are the exact outcomes the Constitution intended. In particular, the author dismisses the notions that Gödel may have been concerned with a broad interpretation of Congress' power under the interstate Commerce Clause, a broad interpretation of the President's power under the Executive Vesting Clause, and a broad interpretation of the Judiciary's power under Article III. Without going into comprehensive review of the vast amounts of case law on these issues, it is fair to say that these can't be considered loopholes. Though there is controversy about the power of each of the branches of government, the argument generally goes that either the Constitution doesn't grant the government broad powers (see Hamer v. Dagenhart , Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer , and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife for narrow interpretations of the legislative, executive, and judicial power, respectively), or that it does and that this is the intention of the Constitution ( Wickard v. Fillburn , Korematsu v. United States , Cooper v. Aaron ). In either case, there is no loophole. Either the Constitution prohibits a power, or intends it; it doesn't allow it unintentionally. Finally, the author proposes that Gödel may have been concerned with Congress' power to admit new states. As this only requires a Congressional majority, a Congress seeking to pass a Constitutional amendment without the consent of the states (Article V requires that 3/4 of the states ratify an Amendment) could, by simple majority, create 150 new states, potentially containing as their population only members of Congress favoring the new Amendments. These puppet states would then presumably all agree to ratify any Amendment. However, this would be difficult, if not impossible. First, it would require the consent of some of the states, which is exactly the kind of thing that Congress, in this scenario, would be trying to avoid. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution says: no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. Note the emphasized text; the creation of new states would require the consent of the states in which they were created. Furthermore, even they could find a way to construct 150 new states with the consent of fewer than 3/4s of the states, the creation of 150 new states is not a trivial task, requiring the approval of a majority of Congress each time. And finally, even if Congress successfully managed to create an appropriate number of puppet states, a supermajority would still be required to amend the Constitution; in the end, Congress would have made the amendment process much more difficult, not less difficult. Ultimately, there is no record of what Gödel may have found or thought he found in the Constitution, and examination of potential hypotheses as to the loophole has not generated any cause for concern. The American Constitution is not a long document, and the entire legal field has been dedicated to interpreting it and pushing its limits for well over two centuries. If there were a fatal flaw, we likely would have found it by now. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9785",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/4235/"
]
} |
9,848 | Let's say Turkey enters a war that is going on in the Middle East. It does not matter against whom. Are other NATO members in the obligation to assist her? Normally they should have to, if Turkey is attacked. But what if the culprit of the initial aggression is debatable, which is the case for the vast majority of wars, especially modern wars, after all? | NATO could, but doesn't have to. Article 5 of the north-atlantic treaty reads: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Technically only the west-most part of Turkey is part of Europe, so according to the original wording, technically the NATO defense clause wouldn't be invoked before the enemy crossed the Bosphorus. But with the accession of Greece and Turkey , the NATO area was clarified to include the whole territory of Turkey. This article guarantees assistance when a member is attacked , not if a member attacks someone else . For a precedent case, consider the many wars the United States were involved in since founding of the NATO. While some NATO states assisted in these wars, there was just one case where the US obligated all of NATO to chip in: the war in Afghanistan which was justified by claiming 9-11 as an armed attack. Also, "use of armed force" is just one possible form of action the other NATO partners could deem necessary . The articles 1 and 2 point out that a non-violent solution should always be preferred, so any peaceful approaches to the situation would be considered before planning a military counter-strike. But what if the situation is complicated? People shoot at each other and nobody is sure who and what started it. In that case Article 4 would likely be invoked: The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. That means the North Atlantic Council would debate whether or not Turkey is threatened and what they could do to remedy the situation. Military intervention on behalf of Turkey is one option, but it is far from the only one. Which course of action to take would depend on the exact circumstances and the current geopolitical interests of the NATO partners. Some options NATO could take are: Nothing, let them sort it out on their own Send an angry letter to the aggressor Impose sanctions on the aggressor Provide Turkey with logistic support (money, weapons, intelligence, consultants etc.) but leave the actual fighting to the Turks. Send troops to secure Turkey's borders Retaliate by sending troops to attack the territory of the aggressor directly | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9848",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5279/"
]
} |
10,021 | I am a well educated Republican, of generally conservative views. Pretty much every day I see and hear people talk about how poor of a candidate Donald Trump is. But he's winning primary after primary, and is likely to win tomorrow in my home state. Every other election I've known plenty of people who are voting for the top several candidates, but for some reason unknown to me the circle of people I talk politics with don't seem to be voting for Trump. Why is that? A few possible thoughts I've had: Donald Trump supporters are less willing to talk about their desire to vote for him. Donald Trump supporters fall under a category of people with whom I have little contact, at least of the type that would be likely to talk politics. Something about my attitude makes me less likely to see his supporters than normal. I'd like to think this isn't the case, but it could be. Something else? | This is a great question, but it's really impossible to answer for certain at this point in time. Trump's current success is defying a lot of "conventional wisdom" about how primaries go. That said, the odds are good that your reason #2 is the most likely: "Donald Trump supporters fall under a category of people with whom I have little contact, at least of the type that would be likely to talk politics." This article from FiveThirtyEight , while it dates from December (well before any actual votes) still seems accurate when it says: The latest polls of the Republican presidential primary show a party badly divided by education: Donald Trump’s strong showings are entirely attributable to huge leads among voters without a college degree, while voters with a degree are split among several candidates. It then goes on to draw a parallel to last election cycle: A similar diploma divide was starkly evident in 2012, when college-educated Republicans almost single-handedly propelled Mitt Romney to the nomination. Romney’s two chief rivals, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, combined to win 765,329 more primary votes than Romney before they exited the race in April, thanks to their dominance among voters without college degrees. But those non-college-educated GOP voters split fairly evenly between Santorum and Gingrich, allowing Romney to prevail with a plurality of votes. Part of what Trump has going for him this election cycle appears to be motivating the non-college-educated-but-conservative segment of the population to turn out and vote in higher numbers than usual. All four Republican contests so far have had greater turnout than in 2012, including Nevada where Trump got more votes this year than there were votes cast in 2012. If Trump supporters are people who generally have not been involved in primaries or politics in the past, then you and your politically-aware circles would have very little overlap with them. Additionally, since that demographic is showing up specifically to vote for Trump, then the division of the more politically active segments between the rest of the field leaves an opening for a plurality candidate who can never reach a majority. One theory says that Trump has a "ceiling" of somewhere around 35% support (+/- 5%). 35% is a lot in a race where the other 65% is split 22/22/8/8/5, but it's nowhere near enough in a race where the other 65% is united. Even if it were 45%/55% after consolidation, Trump wouldn't be winning. All that can probably be summed up by saying: You aren't finding Trump voters in your circles because you're talking to college-educated people who were already interested in politics. Trump is winning because the voters in your demographic are splitting their votes among non-Trump candidates. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10021",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/78/"
]
} |
10,055 | Is the Republican Party forced to support the winner of the presidential primary, or can they choose to support another candidate, for example because that candidate is more in line with the party's political ideals and/or is more likely to win the presidential election? | If a candidate wins 1237 or more delegates, then that candidate will become the Republican nominee. Delegates are bound through the first ballot and that would be enough for a win on the first ballot. However, there are two paths where the leader from the primaries might not be the "Republican supported candidate". First, it's possible that no candidate will win 1237 delegates. In that case, the nomination will be decided at the convention and someone else could be the nominee. This hasn't happened in a Republican convention since 1948 (Democrats in 1952). Second, it's possible that Republicans will run a third-party candidate in the general election. Republicans would then have the ability to vote for that candidate rather than the party nominee. Note that officially that candidate would not be a Republican but some other party. While that's never been done successfully, notable attempts at it include Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and John B. Anderson in 1980. Assuming that the candidates are bound by their pledge to support the eventual nominee, such a third-party candidate would have to come from outside the existing field. Mitt Romney would be the most likely candidate (existing network and support), although someone like John Thune is also possible. Note that it would be rather controversial for someone other than the primary leader to be selected as the nominee and rather radical for a third party candidate to run that way. Also, in the latter case, there would be both a Republican nominee (presumably Trump) and an unofficial "Republican candidate". It really depends what you mean by the "Republican Party". The voters and donors aren't pledged to support anyone in the general election. If Trump wins 1237 or more delegates, he will be listed on ballots as the Republican candidate and no one else will appear on ballots that way. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10055",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/270/"
]
} |
10,288 | Why did the Arab spring back a few years ago fail for the most part, the Iranian green movement didn't get the result it wanted, but the European revolutions (such as French revolution in part or revolutions of 1848) were able to reform a continent with conservative religious views and a set of dictatorship governments into a significantly more free and liberal region? | History and Politics rarely accommodate with clear binary outcome. So, as much I would not say that the Arab Spring revolutions weren't a failure as a whole, I would also not say that the European ones were fully a success. The European/American revolutions were not fully successful... A revolution usually stem from a group of people unhappy about the current regime. They need to be strong enough to take out the regime, but to make it successful, they need to be clear what the desired outcome is. In that sense the American Revolution was successful in building a new independent country. But they failed to extend it to Canada. And whether it was the original intended purpose is also doubtful. The French Revolution of 1789 was meant to imitate the English one from a century before. The purpose of many factions was to bring down absolutism, not all were in favour of a Republic. In any case, after the first struggle, the new governments had several phases like the Terror, where it was easy to lose one's head. Arguably, the French revolution could be considered achieved when Napoleon took the power with a Coup d'Etat, after about 10 years. Was it really a success? In the comments, Bobson mentioned the Revolutions of 1848 as a resemblance to the 2011 revolutions in some Arab countries. But the Wikipedia page summarised it quite well, It remains the most widespread revolutionary wave in European history, but reactionary forces regained control in each case, and the revolutions collapsed typically within a year. So, were they really successful? What the previously mentioned revolutions did succeed in, was to set some examples, some ideas, propose some alternative, which, in some case lead to some changes years later. Without the French Revolutions of 1789 and 1848, France probably wouldn't have been a Republic. Which it really achieved in 1871. And even at that time, there were discussions of bringing a King back. ... and the 2011 Revolutions weren't complete failure neither. In 2016 you want to judge fully the outcome of those protests, revolutions, wars. It is probably too early. Furthermore, if the revolution idea spread like a wave (partly due to Social Networks), the reality of each country is different. The causes and means were also quite different. To give a few examples In Tunisia , the regime was changed, and (free) elections took place. Even if the country still struggles with terrorism and the place of Islam in their society, a change did occur relatively pacifically. In Morocco , the King authorised a new Constitution, reducing (in name, at least) his powers. In Egypt , the previous ruler was overthrown and some elections took place. But at the end, the "revolution" essentially strengthened the military control of the country. In Libya , the government was removed with a strong support from Western powers. But the result is a completely failed country government. In Syria and Yemen , it resulted in civil wars that haven't, to date, stopped. In Iran , the regime stayed in place, but it possibly helped a more moderate side to win the election in 2013, leading to warmer discussions with the western powers, the end of the embargo, etc. Depending on the metric you want to go by, those may or may not qualify as success. Many did bring political changes and often removed the dictatorship government that was in place. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10288",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7624/"
]
} |
10,343 | This Freakonomics podcast says the number one reason for terrorism is military occupation. Robert Pape says that the overwhelming reason for 'suicide' (homicide) bombers is occupation by a foreign power or desire for local autonomy against a larger state, rather than religion. PAPE: Military occupation is the root cause of suicide terrorism. And there are two types of military occupation. There is a foreign, very distant or external occupation, such as when the United States occupies Iraq. And then there can also be an internal occupation, such as when one group occupies another group, such as in Iraq today. Additional info: http://danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf So why did the Islamic State attack Belgium? | Because Pape doesn't know what he's talking about. Islamic jihadist groups Boko Haram and Al Shabbab terrorize African communities in Kenya, Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, Chad, Cameroon, Niger, and Tanzania- which of those countries is engaged in military occupation? The Iraqi Yazidis are terrorized by ISIS - and they don't even have a state or army. Or how about all the Pakistani Christians blown up by the Taliban this week- for celebrating Easter? You don't need to listen to data-crunching professors to understand ISIS- they explain themselves very clearly: The official ISIS magazine spells out their intention to eliminate the "gray zone", in order to divide the world into two camps: Islam vs the Infidel. And here's some choice cuts from their official spokesman : O crusaders, you have realized the threat of the Islamic State, but
you have not become aware of the cure, and you will not discover the
cure because there is no cure. If you fight it, it becomes stronger
and tougher. If you leave it alone, it grows and expands. and Blood becomes legal to spill through disbelief. So whoever is a
Muslim, his blood and wealth are sanctified. And whoever is a
disbeliever, his wealth is legal for a Muslim to take and his blood is
legal to spill. The big lie is that all this terrorism is somehow a response to bad behavior by the West. In reality the vast majority of Islamic terror victims are the minority populations of Muslim-majority countries: Copts in Egypt, Bahai's in Iran, Animists in Sudan, Assyrians in Iraq, Shiites in Sunni countries, Sunnis in Shiite countries, Jews anywhere... And it doesn't matter what the West does, because they'll always find a reason- there are a thousand ways to piss off an Islamist: Draw a cartoon, you're marked for death Make a movie, you're marked for death Write a book, you're marked for death Get an education, you're marked for death Leave your husband, you're marked for death Leave the faith, you're marked for death Speak out, you're marked for death Love your neighbor, you're marked for death So even if we pulled out from every last place on earth, solved the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and walked on egg-shells until the end of time, any random idiot posting a Mohammed video on YouTube would still give them all the justification they needed to shoot up an office or bring down an airliner. While we're at it, let's dispel a final myth: that these terrorists represent a lunatic fringe, an tiny minority that has no popular appeal in the Islamic world. And yet, as I write this, twenty-five thousand protesters are marching in a single city in Pakistan, in FAVOR of killing people for blasphemy. Is it any wonder terrorists don't have a recruiting problem? Which brings me to my final point- there's a difference between having political grievances and being batshit crazy. It's time to stop thinking of Islamists as just another religious/political/ethnic faction, that can be reasoned with or appeased, and start treating them like insane death cult that they are. If you want to read some people who actually do know what they're talking about, try: Sleepwalking Toward Armageddon - Sam
Harris On the Maintenance of Civilization - Sam Harris and Douglas
Murray What ISIS Really Wants - Graeme
Wood | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10343",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/2430/"
]
} |
10,362 | Shouldn't anarchism be far-right, since right-wing politics opposes "big government" and favours less government influence? Anarchism has basically no government influence, so shouldn't it be the most radical viewpoint on the right? Anarchism is traditionally viewed as far-left, but it doesn't make much sense, since left-wing politics supposedly favours "big government" influence. | No, because there are different dimensions. There is authoritarianism/anti-authoritarianism, versus liberal/conservative. Here are several charts which shows the possible outlays expanding on the limited left/right paradigm. This is a Nolan Chart . It uses the axis of personal freedom vs. economic freedom. Left anarchists don't believe in economic freedom. If someone tried to price gouge, they would be visited with violence. This chart shows authoritarianism vs. left/right. I might disagree with some of the positions of the dots. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10362",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5846/"
]
} |
10,414 | According to Jürgen Todenhöfer who spent 10 days in the “Islamic State” last year , Israel is the only country in the world that ISIS fears. Apparently, ISIS is not intimidated by the U.S. nor the U.K., because ISIS believes they can defeat their ground troops. ISIS has not been open about this weakness, and has even made threats against Israel and Jewish people in its propaganda videos . So, if Israel is the only country feared by ISIS, why aren't they fighting ISIS? | Because they don't pose an immediate threat that needs to be countered ASAP ISIS isn't a tangible current threat to Israel's existence. They are definitely a threat to Syria or Iraq strategically. They pose varied levels of threat to other Middle East countries. But they don't have the military capability to attack Israel as a fighting force, not anytime soon. Additionally, they aren't an ideological threat. DAESH's main ideology is about confronting "Rome" - Christian Western states are its main opponent. They aren't the highest tactical threat either Yes they would probably love to launch a terrorist attack against Israel; but they are far less likely to do so than Palestinian Authority or Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad. Israel has finite resources (actionable assets, political capital, budget, time); and those resources are far better invested in countering the above threats. They don't have a broad base of support among Palestinians, because Palestinians are already committed to existing movements. Commingled loyalties (a new counter-terrorism term for people who are influenced by both ISIS and another extremist group) are possible, but ISIS doesn't offer all that much to a radicalized Palestinian that Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah would. Because Israel has nothing tangible to gain by fighting ISIS As noted above, ISIS is low on Israel's threat level, so there's no threat reduction to achieve Israel won't get any positive side effects from doing so. Western liberals who already sympathize with non-ISIS terrorists won't change their opinion. Arab countries populace won't change their opinion either. There are tangible downsides to fighting ISIS for Israel It will piss off Saudis, Turkey and other anti-Shia block Sunni countries who are either indirectly allied with ISIS, or at the very least benefit from ISIS fight with Iran, Heznollah and Al-Assad who are their enemies. It will immediately be spinned off by western MSM and definitely Arab media as "Evil joos attacking Muslims" (as evidence, witness Western media coverage of the current situation : when a Palestinia terrorist attacks Israelis, and is killed, it's immediately spun off as "Palestinian killed", not "Palestinian tried to kill Israelis and gets killed in self-defense") It will potentially harm the current anti-ISIS coalition which includes Arab/Muslim countries. Same thing happened with Gulf War I, when USA was concerned that Israel attacking Iraq will shatter their coalition with Arab states and thus prohibited Israel from even responding to SCUD missile attacks, never mind joining the coalition. It will take finite resources away from countering more tangible threats to Israel (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, PA) At this point, ISIS' main tactical enemy (or one of them) is Hezbollah, so attacking ISIS will backfire on Israel in that it will "help" Hezbollah indirectly. They more they fight ISIS in Syria, the less they pay attention to attacking Israel. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10414",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5846/"
]
} |
10,790 | Googling the phrase 2016 primaries indicates that Donald Trump is the " likely Republican presidential nominee" (emphasis mine). While Donald Trump needs 1237 delegates to secure the nomination, he currently only has 1013. However, all of his opponents (namely Cruz and Kasich) have recently dropped out of the race. My question is, why does Google only consider him the likely nominee? Won't he, by definition, win the remaining delegates and pass the 1237 threshold? Or can something still go wrong pre-convention that takes the nomination away from Trump? | No, Trump is not the official nominee until the Republican National Convention says so. A number of things could go wrong (or right, depending on your politics) to prevent Donald Trump from becoming the Republican party presidential candidate. The first thing to realize is the rules for "pledged" delegates vary by state . In the Republican Party system most delegates are "bound" by their states; their vote will go to their pledged candidate in the first round . If no one gets a majority in the first round, states begin to release their delegates from their obligations for the next rounds of voting. At that point it's chaos and delegates become free to make their own choices. Formerly bound delegates will become free to vote for any eligible candidate in the second round or later rounds. Eligibility is determined by party rules and can be changed at the convention. This is a simplification of a very complicated process, more detail below. The second thing is that selecting a presidential candidate is a party process, not a legal one. The Republican Party decides how they select their candidates, and the Democratic Party has their own. This is further split up state by state. This is part of why the process is so weird. That said, barring serious party shenanigans, if Trump gets the magic number of pledged delegates he is in... except for below. He could die. A similar situation happened in the 1872 presidential election when Liberal Republican candidate Horace Greeley died after the Electorial College had been chosen but before they had voted. All but three electors switched their votes to other candidates. This didn't throw the election, Grant already had it wrapped up. What happens to Trump's pledged delegates if he dies varies state by state. He could not get the necessary bound delegates. Candidates typically don't "drop out" of the race, they "suspend their campaigns". Even if Trump is the only one on the ballot it's not assured he will be awarded the delegates. The rules vary from state to state. If Trump fails to get the necessary bound delegates in the first round, voting goes into a second round. This is known as a contested convention and it's what Ted Cruz was hoping for. At this point things begin to unravel. The rules get complicated, both state and convention rules. Once unbound delegates can vote for anyone they want, or not vote at all, though it's unclear what votes will be counted. We'll get to that. With Cruz out this is extremely unlikely. What is more likely is attempts at the convention to take bound delegates away from Trump with various procedural shenanigans, more on that later. He could drop out. I was waiting for Trump's April 1st press conference to declare his candidacy the greatest April Fool's Joke of all time. Alas, it didn't happen. But if it did, things would be in turmoil and the other candidates would come racing back to the campaign trail. Republican National Convention shenanigans. The 2016 RNC rules are currently not known . Yes, this is a little crazy. Just like Trump is the presumptive nominee, everyone is operating under presumptive rules. The rules of the 2016 Republican National Convention are not law. Each convention decides its own rules . It's customary to adopt the rules of the previous RNC, and the tweaks since , but this is not required! Several key rules could be changed, or their interpretations changed, to "unbind" delegates, or change how votes are counted, or to allow bound delegates to simply not vote. Rule 16 and Rule 40 are the two big ones outlining how delegates votes are counted, and who is eligible for nomination. Under the presumptive Rule 40, only Trump and Cruz are eligible for the nomination because they're the only ones who can "demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8) or more states". This rule can change. It was added in 2012 to prevent spoiler candidates, but that's exactly what the 2016 anti-Trump people want. The presumptive, and heavily revised since 2012, Rule 16 deals with rogue delegates. Long story short, delegates cannot act against their state's rules. If they do they are considered to have resigned and voted according to their state's rules. Like many parliamentary systems, there's some wiggle room in the rule which allows the Secretary Of The Convention to pick and choose which violations they pay attention to. And, again, Rule 16 may change. It's complicated. Pulling the presumptive rules apart is its own answer. Even then they might not be the 2016 rules. Such shenanigans are a part of every RNC. An overt move would shatter the Republican Party and the people's already shaky faith in their nomination system. Expect a lot of rules lawyering. This is the big unknown. A similar situation happened at the 1912 RNC to protect President Taft's nomination as the incumbent from the popular former president Teddy Roosevelt. Denied the Republican nomination, Teddy ran in 1912 as a 3rd party candidate. Sources Rules Of The Republican Party As Adopted At The 2012 Republican National Convention Everything you need to know about delegate math in the presidential primary . Republican Delegate Allocation Rules By State The Real Import Of Rule 40 in 2016 Throwing Out Convention Votes? You may find more answers in this related question eventually. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10790",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8057/"
]
} |
11,021 | Why won't President Obama apologize for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? He will be visiting Hiroshima soon, and he has said that he isn't going to be apologizing. | It is hard to explain why conventional bombing of a city is principally better, morally, than a nuclear bombing of a city. If Obama apologized for the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he should also apologize for all the other bombings of Japanese and German cities during WWII. Nuclear bombings were not prohibited by the Hague conventions. By today's estimations, if the USA wouldn't use nuclear weapons, the invasion would cost at least between 500,000 and 750,000, and maybe as high as 1,000,000 deaths (not casualties) of American soldiers . The number of killed Japanese soldiers is estimated to be 7 times higher. No country could be reasonably expected to sacrifice between 500,000 and 1,000,000 of its soldiers in order to save 300,000 enemy civilians. These figures do not include Chinese civilians which would be killed by the Japanese. In 1939-1945, about 3.9 million Chinese civilians were killed by Japanese . More Chinese people were tortured, raped etc. Japan has not asked for an apology. Japanese people, generally, don't want the apology either. The Japanese emperor Hirohito, who is highly respected in his country, said: "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped, and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima, but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime." Further, in the May 2016 Japan Times poll, 64.9% of Japanese respondents thought Obama does not need to apologize but that he should commit to nuclear nonproliferation . This figure does not include those Japanese who thought Obama should neither apologize nor commit to nuclear nonproliferation. Totally, almost 75% of Japanese respondents thought Obama should not apologize. Apologies might change the public view of bombings, which would worsen, rather than improve, the American image, and harm the relationships between the USA and Japan. They would lead to demands that reparations be paid for the bombings, and for all other bombings during WWII. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11021",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5846/"
]
} |
11,253 | I am French and not well-informed on everything happening with the US election. Hence my puzzled state when hearing the joke Obama made about Bernie Sanders: You look like a million bucks. Or, to put it in some terms you will be
able to relate to: you look like 37000 donations of $27 each. Is it simply related to Bernie Sanders' philosophy about rich people? (As if saying this in terms of donation make it sounds more democratic?) Or is it related to some actual fact? | The joke is referencing Sanders fundraising strategy. His campaign targeted small donors, and managed to raise an unprecedented amount from online contributions. 27$ is a reference to the average online donation in January, a month when the money raised (~20mil) came almost exclusively from these online contributions. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11253",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8468/"
]
} |
11,373 | I first heard of "Brexit" from John Oliver on Last Week Tonight, where he urged UK voters not to leave the EU, citing false motivations used to promote the Brexit. Proponents of a Brexit claimed that: the UK was paying £350 million each week to, but which could be avoided by leaving, the EU. John Oliver claimed that the UK would still have nearly the same expenditure if they weren't part of the EU. leaving the EU would free them from many EU rules and regulations. John Oliver claimed that the UK would still have to follow EU rules and regulations, to trade with the EU market. He cited many cons to the Brexit, and discounted many pros used to promote the Brexit. Nevertheless, the UK voted for the Brexit. So I'm curious, what were the other political motivations cited by proponents for the Brexit? | Brexit is a complicated beast that has as diverse a set of motivations as there are supporters of it. Some of the more impactful ones (in no particular order): Border Controls/Immigration - As a member of the EU, the UK is obligated to accept without reservation any person from another EU member state wishing to move to the UK to live, work, study, or retire (otherwise known as "Freedom of Movement", protected by Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). This was not agreeable for some in Britain, and it became exacerbated in the wake of high unemployment in the post 2008/2009 global recession and Syrian refugee crisis, which caused many to seek jobs in the UK (where unemployment is much lower, around 5%). Supporters of Brexit argued this takes away jobs from UK citizens, and deflates wages as immigrants agree to lesser wages. Bureaucracy - Many Brexit supporters argue against having to answer to bureaucrats they did not elect in Brussels (home of the EU), and that the extra red tape hampers the ability of smaller UK businesses to grow and create jobs. Contribution to EU - The UK contributes more to the EU in funds that it receives back. In 2015, the net contribution (amount given to EU - rebates back) was estimated to be £8.4 billion . Supporters of Brexit argue this money (sometimes using the gross contribution number instead of net) would be better spent within the UK instead of being given to Brussels. Populism - Similar to the movements spurring the candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the USA, some supporters of Brexit viewed it as an opportunity to attack the political elites/experts, to whom resentment has grown since the 2008/2009 global recession and its subsequent recovery, which has tended to favor the upper echelons of society over the middle and working classes. These supporter saw Brexit as a way to signal to the government they were not to be ignored. Opposition to Globalization - Tying in with the above, globalization has caused the loss of many industrial jobs that once supported the working class to other nations/automation. Some supporters of Brexit viewed the referendum as an opportunity to voice their displeasure with this trend to the political elite. Opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and USA would fall here as well, as the UK if a member of the EU could not reject it if approved by the majority of EU member states. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11373",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7655/"
]
} |
11,375 | Let's assume that Article 50 is invoked and UK officially leaves EU For some reason, both UK populace (a large share) and enough powers that be or popular will in EU, decide that UK ought to re-join EU, 1,2 or 5 years down the road. So far I heard tons of people asserting that this cannot happen, that you can't re-enter EU. But none of them backed it up with any facts. So... are there actual rules/laws in place that would prevent UK from re-joining EU, if both sides are willing/interested? If the assertion is incorrect, what are the minimal requirements for that to happen? (I can split #2 into a separate question if it makes this question too broad) | Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union (the article which governs leaving the EU) has a clause which explicitly mentions that rejoining the EU is possible after leaving it: If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. Article 49, in case you wonder, is the general admission process which applies to all would-be new EU members. It requires unanimous consent from the EU council members and simple majority from the EU parliament. That means any EU member could veto the UKs re-admission, but currently I wouldn't know of any EU state having a good reason to do so. So you can dismiss the statement "UK will never be able to rejoin the EU" as FUD . You can of course consider the political problems of re-joining the EU after a referendum just came to the conclusion that the UK population does not want to be a part of the EU. While referendums in the UK are non-binding due to parliamental sovereignty it would theoretically be possible to act against it. But doing so might be considered political suicide. It will likely take a new referendum to rejoin the EU, and until circumstances have considerably changed there will likely be harsh resistance against another one. On the other hand, there are also all the special privileges the UK used to have in the EU, like opting out of the Schengen agreement, opting out of the Euro zone, a rebate on financial contributions to the EU and many more. All of that would need to be renegotiated in case of a readmission. So while it is wrong to say "The UK can not rejoin the EU", one might say that "The UK can not rejoin the EU and regain all the special privileges it had " . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11375",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/115/"
]
} |
11,450 | The United Kingdom European Union membership referendum (23rd June 2016) resulted in a vote in favour of the UK leaving the European Union. To give effect to the referendum result, i.e. to leave the EU, Parliament needs to notify the EU that it is enacting Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. If Parliament did not follow through on the referendum result and trigger Article 50 to begin the process of leaving the EU what would/could happen? Brexit results . | Traditionally the UK holds that Parliament is sovereign . Some modifications to the absolute sovereignty of Parliament have been made, starting with the Parliament Act of 1911 and including aspects of human rights law (contrary to popular belief withdrawal from the EU will not in itself change the legal situation regarding human rights), but it is basically still in place. Therefore in law Parliament does not have to answer to anyone , and the referendum is only advisory. But to disregard the majority result of a hard-fought referendum that was presented to the British people by politicians from all major parties and from both the Remain and Leave sides as the most important democratic vote in their lifetimes would be political suicide. The legitimacy of any government that tried it would be fatally undermined, and not only among those who voted Leave. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11450",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7644/"
]
} |
11,477 | After the Brexit vote, Cameron announced he would be stepping down in October. Why is he waiting so long? Surely a transition does not take 4 months. | The reason for the delay is the Conservative election process needs to be completed before he actually steps down. He wanted the new leader to be in place before the Conservative Conference in October, but has recently stated that the new leader will probably be in place by 2nd September. The mechanics of the Conservative Leadership election are not too complicated. There is a proposed timetable which is first ratified by the Party board and then the 1922 Committee (backbench MP organisation) Nominations are opened and any MPs wishing to stand require 2 nominations from fellow MPs When nominations close if there is only one candidate then they are automatically elected If two then it goes straight to a vote by the Party Membership If more than two then the MPs vote for their favourites, and after each round the MP with the fewest votes drops out until there are only two remaining, and then it goes to the Party Membership Between the time the Nominations close and the actual member election there needs to be a period of hustings and debate. The above process was used for David Cameron's election in 2005. So to answer the question, he doesn't want the Party without a leader, or the country without a Prime Minister, during a time of huge instability and it could take until October for that process to be complete. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11477",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5407/"
]
} |
11,505 | It is often reported in the press that the UK will not be able to arrange a new trade deal with the EU without accepting the free movement of labor. Why is this the case: What do other countries gain if their citizens come to the UK? Is it just ideology of an open Europe, and fairness that people should be able to live and work where they choose that is driving, or is there also an economic argument? | Put simply: It's one of the cornerstones of the “internal market” (the current EU official term for what has also been called the “unique” or “single” market). The theory is that freedom of movement for goods, capital, services and persons ensure the most efficient allocation of resources and convergence between EU economies. Many people seem to imagine it's a detail, something that could easily be extirpated from the rest of EU rules or something other countries forced the UK to accept for unfathomable reasons. It's not, it's an integral part of a coherent package and something the UK was originally very keen on. Similarly, you can't pick and choose between apparently silly regulations like those on the contents of pillows and whatnot, everybody has to abide by the same rules to allow products to be sold across the EU without having to deal with a separate standard on safety, quality, etc. for each country. That's the reason why Norway (which is in the EEA) and Switzerland (which rejected even that) still have to implement most of these rules anyway (with one big exception: agriculture). There is no way around it without seriously endangering the whole construction (which might nonetheless happen, I am not trying to predict where the negotiations will lead). The long-term objective is that EU economies should reach a level of integration such that for each economic decision (hiring an employee, choosing an employer or supplier, buying a product, etc.), you could transparently make a transaction with a business or person elsewhere in the EU as if it was a business or person in your own country, without worrying about extra paperwork, delays, etc. That's the theoretical and economical reason why freedom of movement for workers was an integral part of the project from the start (back in the days of the European Coal and Steel Community and then in the 1959 Treaty of Rome), long before the creation of the EU and the mostly failed attempts at extending its remit to things like defense or border security or the catastrophic experiment that is the euro. Therefore, the original argument for all this is primarily about economics, as you suspected. Historically, the freedom of movement thus only covered workers . The Maastricht treaty added some limited rights for economically non-active people (e.g. retirees, under the condition that they have sufficient income) and case law extended them (e.g. based on the notion that living with your family should be a basic right) but freedom of movement for workers is still the most thorough (and freedom of movement is only about EU citizens; the rules about refugees and the border-free Schengen area fall under an entirely separate set of regulations). The short-term political considerations are slightly different but also go in the same direction. For if Britain is able to extract significant concessions and gets to choose which rules it will continue to implement, why deny that to other countries?
Freedom of movement for persons is a particular focal point in the UK debate at the moment (but also implicitly free movement of goods, for that's what all the seemingly absurd rules about pillows, vacuum cleaners, bananas, cucumbers and the rest are about) but elsewhere it will be something else (including the freedom of movement for services – cf. the clichéed “Polish plumber” or the complaints about lorry drivers from Central and Eastern Europe – or capital – cf. discussion about tax deals with large companies in Luxembourg or Ireland). The risk is that we would soon end up with a fragmented market where each country adds friction and bureaucratic requirements in different areas based on its current and changing priorities, essentially rolling back the EU single market. The EU would then revert to the kind of free(ish) trade that currently prevails between countries elsewhere in the world. That would not necessarily be a catastrophe but would clearly mark the end of the single market and the EU as we know it so it's easy to see why countries, parties and politicians who are currently part of it and find it beneficial would not want to go down that road. The single market and freedom of movement (for persons and for other things) are very different in that respect from things like the euro or the Schengen area, which the UK could easily “opt-out” from in the past. Those are merely side-projects, not really tied in a very deep way to the existence of the EU itself. Incidentally, it's interesting to note that the UK has always been a strong supporter of the single market idea against French push for centralised policy making à la Common Agricultural Policy. The European Union the British voters just rejected therefore owes much more to their country's than to the French or German vision of what it should be. Freedom of movement for persons is a case in point: The UK was very much in favour of enlargement and almost the only country not to put any restrictions on freedom of movement for citizens of the new member states during the 2004-2011 transitory period (although this was at least in part because it did not expect that many people to actually show up). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11505",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6362/"
]
} |
11,644 | Black Lives Matter is an American social justice movement which seeks to remedy the problem of extrajudicial killings of people of color by police officers among other issues. One aspect of this movement, that I found interesting was that they usually start demonstrating before the police department in question has had a chance to review the facts of the shooting and take any disciplinary or legal actions against the officer responsible. For example, on July 6 2016, the world saw a video of Philando Castile after he was shot 4 times by a police officer . In the video, his girlfriend narrates, describing a horrific miscarriage of justice. She claims Mr. Castile was pulled over for a traffic stop and after announcing that he had a legal firearm with a concealed carry permit and reaching for his wallet, he was shot 4 times. Later that day he died. Immediately following, and in reaction to another fatal shooting, Black Lives Matter organizers set up protests throughout the country. Meanwhile, another organization which champions the rights of concealed carry permit holders, the NRA, released a statement saying “The reports from Minnesota are troubling and must be thoroughly investigated, in the meantime, it is important for the NRA not to comment while the investigation is ongoing.” What are the reasons the Black Lives Matter movement members use to explain why they protest while investigations are pending; rather than waiting until law enforcement has had a chance to investigate, release relevant information, and punish officers who have broken the law or violated police procedure? I understand that there is no formalized platform of the grassroots Black Lives Matter movement, but I think prominent members, organizers, or reporters who have spoken to many members will be good enough sources to get a sense of the reasoning behind this decision. | The Black Lives Matter campaign is predicated on the position that people of color are met disproportionately with death or other mistreatment at the hands of law enforcement, and that this phenomena is enabled by generalized cultural under-valuation of Black lives. The complex is not merely in that the cops themselves are belligerent or apathetic or whatever, but that society as a whole is unconcerned with improving on the status quo, and therefore fails to subject the establishments of law enforcement with the scrutiny and interest necessary to make any changes. So the notion of waiting to see what nuances the investigation turns up is rather beside the point, isn't it? Taciturn proceduralism is how events like these retain their mundanity and become the accepted order of the day. Philando Castile's Life Mattered, as they say, so you ought to be furious to see it ended in such a way! You shouldn't be waiting for further details, you should be rabidly demanding answers. How did this happen? Why did this happen? Explain all the factors which could have possibly contributed to this tragedy and justify why greater efforts aren't being taken to change them. That's what they're saying, at those protests. Make no mistake, the circumstances around the flashpoint event in this case were almost perfect (in a sickening way): Mr. Castile's seeming benignity, the shocking depiction of his death rattle, and the superhuman calm and respect with which his girlfriend handled herself even in the midst of the officer brandishing his weapon and apparently slipping into hysteria. These characteristics make it easy to sympathize and to rally to the moral high-ground, and those features are certainly very important as the foundations of an effective activist campaign. There is an ugly reactionary impulse which searches for mitigating circumstances and weaknesses in the victim's character to write off events such as these, and in this case it looks like it's gonna be pretty tough outside of some kind of discovery in the investigation. But, while it's certainly possible that something might come to light that moves the late Mr. Castile a little less beyond reproach, it really shouldn't be a matter of concern. The outrage, here, is not that a saint was killed, but that a person was. You've heard people bitching about the Black Lives Matter moniker and making the counterpoint that All Lives Matter, right? Well, yeah, that's actually the entire point. The precise details of this anecdote are irrelevant beyond the fact that a guy started the day with a burnt-out light bulb and ended it in a bloodbath. A person can go from A to B while acting entirely within the realm of reasonable and benign human behavior, and since that is clearly not a standard of conduct which people should be required to surpass just to avoid being slaughtered, something else has gotta change. The protesters have gathered to say: find that thing and change it, now. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11644",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/2951/"
]
} |
11,814 | As indicated by commentary in the news, a considerable amount of people seem concerned about who wins the U.S. Presidential election. For this reason we have for example articles like this Op-Ed in LA Times (by James Kirchick, a fellow with the Foreign Policy Initiative) saying that the election of some individual as the next President could even result in a coup in the U.S. The article describes a situation such as follows: Try to imagine, then, a situation in which Trump commanded our
military to do something stupid, illegal or irrational. Something so
dangerous that it put the lives of Americans and the security of the
country at stake. (Trump’s former rival for the Republican
presidential nomination, Marco Rubio, said the United States could not
trust “the nuclear codes” to an “erratic individual.”) Faced with
opposition from his military brass, Trump would perhaps reconsider and
back down. But what if he didn’t? Blimpish swagger might fly within
the patriarchal confines of a family business...or a dictatorship. It
does not work, however, in a liberal democracy. In that case, our military men and women, who swear to uphold the
Constitution and a civilian chain of command, would be forced to
choose between obeying the law and serving the wishes of someone who
has explicitly expressed his utter lack of respect for it. So now to a hypothetical situation, in which: A person has won the election as far as both the popular vote and the majority of the votes from the Electoral College are concerned. The current administration has determined that, for the sake of [some reason(s)], that persons presidency needs to be blocked. Some time ago, statements were made by Rush Limbaugh about the current president somehow extending his own Presidency past 2016. In a discussion with Rush Limbaugh, Ben Carson stated that the 22nd amendment makes that impossible. But if we look at the wording of the 22nd amendment we can see that it says that... No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice ...and this refers to not being elected to office, i.e. a reference to the individual being elected through the popular and electoral vote, for a third time. This amendment also does not say anything about the length of the terms a President can be in office. Thus it seems that the 22nd amendment alone would not be sufficient to block the President from e.g. simply continuing his presidency (and bypassing the election process altogether). The President would still need some authority to extend his term in office, however. According to some information on the web (esp. at many sites devoted to conspiracy theories), the President could do this with the help of Executive Order 12919. This Executive Order is often described as allowing an incumbent President to overtake control of all the resources and bypass Congress through a declaration of martial law. Supposedly it could be used by the President to stay in power permanently. However the information about Executive Order 12919 at UNT Digital Library states that: The scope of Executive Order 12919 is sometimes misunderstood. For
example, congressional offices sometimes receive correspondence
expressing concerns that Executive Order 12919 reflects an attempt by
the President to assume powers not conferred on him under the
Constitution and to consolidate all the powers of the federal
government under the Executive Branch and also that the Order somehow
allows the President to declare martial law. Those concerns are
unwarranted. As its caption (i.e., National Defense Industrial
Resources Preparedness) itself implies, Executive Order 12919 relates
exclusively to the preparedness of U.S. defense-related industries in
times of war or other national emergencies. It has nothing whatever to
do with declarations of martial law. It has no effect at all on the
continued powers of Congress and the federal courts during periods of
war or other national emergencies. Other similar scenarios found online would involve the Insurrection Act of 1807 (10 U.S.C. 331) or the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 U.S.C. 1385). However I did not find anything in these that would allow the President to extend their own time in office. But perhaps there are some alternatives that do not involve the President to extend his own Presidency(?) The question is: Would an incumbent President have any legal means or other authority to block someone from being president if the latter wins the majority of votes from both the voting public and the Electoral College? | Under section 1 of the 20th Amendment, The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. Obama cannot constitutionally extend his term. No emergency powers can override that section of the Constitution. If Ted Kaczynski (aka "the Unabomber") receives a majority of the electoral votes (popular vote has no legal effect) for President, as officially counted by a joint session of Congress presided over by the President of the Senate (i.e. Biden), and if Kaczynski meets the constitutional requirements to assume the office (he does), then Kaczynski is sworn in at noon on January 20, 2017. The mechanics of the joint session are laid out by federal law . Congress meets on January 6 and receives the vote tallies from all 50 states as certified by state authority. In general, only one certificate of electoral votes is received from each state, and unless a majority in both houses of Congress determines that the votes were not regularly cast by lawfully appointed electors, they're counted. Other rules apply in other situations, but Obama has no role in any of these situations (the other situations are mostly where multiple sets of purported electoral votes are received, but Obama can't get a second certificate certified by state authority). Extralegal means are honestly not worth discussing. By their very nature there are no rules governing them, and no relevant authority. Obama commands the military, but members of the military swear primarily to obey the Constitution and have a duty to refuse unlawful orders. Obama is not physically able to personally prevent anyone else from assuming office, and if we're positing members of the executive branch listening to Obama and not federal law or the Constitution, there's no basis for saying what would or wouldn't happen. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11814",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6382/"
]
} |
11,839 | It seems that the main avenues available to the President of the United States (POTUS) to exercise his will are: Vetoing bills Hiring and firing top employees in federal government Appointing supreme justices Interacting with other heads of state (I guess "commander in chief" could fall under this as well) However, there appears to be an odd tradition of US presidential campaigns making promises regarding things that would fall outside this sphere, and making very few promises that actually pertain to these powers. The most obvious one is the last item - especially lately, foreign policy has been a major talking point in several campaigns. However, I couldn't say when was the last time a presidential candidate tried running on things like: "Agency X sucks, I'll fire the director and hire Y instead, he will fix it!" "What a bunch of fools SCOTUS are! I'll appoint much better justices!" "Look at all the awful bills congress has been passing lately... I'll put a stop that!" However, they often make claims about matters such as taxes, abortion, vaccines, high profile corporate scandals and the economy which seem like just those things that happen to fall outside of POTUS's reach. Taxes, for instance, are defined by the tax code, and are a legislative matter. Various corporate scandals are judicial matter. Abortions can be either, depending on whether you're trying to add some new laws or get rid of existing ones, but they certainly seem to have little to do with the executive. Why is this? The cynical retort is that the American electorate is simply too uneducated to appreciate the separation of powers principle, and hence candidates disregard it when campaigning. However, this doesn't satisfy me as an explanation, because many presidential terms have ultimately precipitated events that can be seen as along the lines of what the president promised. So it appears that the "soft" power of the president is real, and it matters more than the actual legal powers of the executive branch. So what is going on? Is it that: I'm confused about the US government and the executive is in fact capable of implementing many of the campaign promises that candidates typically make Candidates promise things that they would obviously not be able to do, the public believes them since they don't understand separation of powers Candidates are announcing their intention to a very liberal interpretation of existing law POTUS is widely understood to have no legal power to fulfill most of the campaign promises, but due to the prestige and status of the president, his stances strongly influence the behavior of congress Or is it a fifth option I have not considered? | Hiring and firing top employees in federal government Right, subject to the approval of the Senate, the President appoints the cabinet. So, yes, the President has limited direct contact with employees of federal agencies. But they can legitimately campaign based on whatever powers are legislated to federal agencies, and whatever discretion those agencies have in spending their budgets. "Agency X sucks, I'll fire the director and hire Y instead, he will
fix it!" Well, they don't say this explicitly, but when they say "I'll do Y", Y being within the powers of a federal agency, I think it's understood to mean, "I'll appoint someone who is strongly inclined to do Y, and they'll know darn well that if they don't do Y I'll sack them". If even that doesn't work, the President can issue executive orders, and employees of federal agencies are bound to follow these orders provided that they're legitimate (within the legal discretion of the agency in question and whatever other terms and conditions apply). "What a bunch of fools SCOTUS are! I'll appoint much better justices!" They can't promise this because they don't know when SCOTUS justices will die (or voluntarily retire). I doubt it will be a major issue in the upcoming campaign, but for example Trump has published a list , so in effect he is campaigning a little on his SCOTUS nominees. I believe there's some realpolitik here too, and that Presidents typically don't like to talk about specific names too early because they don't want Congress to set itself to reject them. You'll note that Trumps list is quite long, really it's more like an idea of the kind of person he might nominate. "Look at all the awful bills congress has been passing lately... I'll put a stop that!" They don't phrase it this way because threatening legislative deadlock from the outset is a good way not to get your budget passed. But brinkmanship between the President and Congress is basically the entire Obama Presidency . Even with a Democrat majority, Obamacare was a struggle because the President pressed for more than what a majority of the legislature (especially the Senate) was otherwise inclined to give him. So, a President can do that. The ultimate threat of veto is one of the ways in which the President is involved in the process of driving Congress towards finding a bill that will pass. Taxes, for instance, are defined by the tax code, and are a legislative matter. And the President is always involved in the discussions around each budget. The President can't demand particular taxes, but can and does ask for them, so can legitimately campaign on what they'll ask for, what they'll use influence to fight for, and what they would, ultimately, if it ever came to it, veto. Various corporate scandals are judicial matter. But the prosecutors, the US Attorneys, work for the DoJ whose head, the Attorney General, is nominated by and reports to the President. Candidates can't campaign guaranteeing a particular verdict, but can guarantee what kinds of thing they're most interested in investigating and finding ways to prosecute. Abortions can be either, depending on whether you're trying to add some new laws or get rid of existing ones, but they certainly seem to have little to do with the executive. Furthermore, abortion is quite heavily regulated by the states (Roe vs. Wade notwithstanding). So agreed, a President can't do a whole lot more here than to use whatever influence they have on public opinion in general and on other politicians in particular. Candidates are announcing their intention to a very liberal interpretation of existing law Assuming you accept executive control of federal law enforcement and prosecution (and let's face it, under Hoover the President didn't always control the FBI) then on criminal law this is within the President's power. On the whole they aren't required to investigate or prosecute something. So for example if the President says not to bother investigating Ponzi schemes ("this is not a priority, something else is a priority!"), and the head of the SEC doesn't resign on the spot in protest, then the existing law on Ponzi schemes may indeed fall by the wayside for the remainder of that President's term. Judges might still interpret the law strictly, but if prosecutors are interpreting it liberally and not bringing charges except in the most egregious cases... In short, the President doesn't sit in a sealed box where bills from Congress and diplomatic cables come in one slot, and signed/vetoed bills and foreign policy come out of another. They throw their weight around. As has been the case with Obama on gun control, this doesn't always amount to anything, but often it does. In addition to this, the President has more power through executive orders than your enumeration of powers suggests. Some people do feel that the separation of powers has been eroded or abused, since at least Lincoln if not before. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11839",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9076/"
]
} |
11,885 | Here are the current U.S. presidential election forecasts from Predictwise and FiveThirtyEight . Clinton Trump
Predictwise 67 33
FiveThirtyEight 52 47 Math details: There is a 29 point gap between the two forecasts ((67-33)-(52-47) = 29). This is a factor of 6 times the difference in the closer estimate (29 / (52-47) = 6). Bottom line: Although both forecasts favor the same candidate, the results are wildly different in magnitude. Questions: What explains the large difference between the two forecasts? Given that FiveThirtyEight correctly predicted the results of every state in the most recent election, which forecast makes a more compelling case for accuracy? | They're both "correct", in so far as predictions can be. They're measuring different things. FiveThirtyEight has three models, with the default one at that site being the "polls-only" one. They go into their methodology here , and summarize it: Step 1: Collect, weight and average polls. Step 2: Adjust polls. Step 3: Combine polls with demographic and (in the case of polls-plus) economic data. Step 4: Account for uncertainty and simulate the election thousands of times. In other words, it's purely data-driven: Polls + demographics = prediction. Predictwise , on the other hand, aggregates "Prediction Markets (Betfair, PredictIt, Hypermind), Polling (HuffPost Pollster), [and] Bookie (OddsChecker).". Their method is described as Step 1: construct prices from the back/sell, lay/bid, and last
transaction odd/price in the order book. We always take the average of
the highest price traders are willing to buy a marginal share and the
lowest price people are willing to sell a marginal share, unless the
differential is too large or does not exist. Step 2: correct for
historical bias and increased uncertainty in constructed prices near
$0 or $1. We raise all of the constructed prices to a pre-set value
depending on the domain. Step 3: normalized to equal 100% for any
mutually exclusive set of outcomes. In other words, it's mostly market-driven: People's bets -> Market -> Prediction. (In theory, there is polling data used in there, but I can't find any details on that.) TL;DR FiveThirtyEight is predicting how people will vote based on polls and demographics. Predictwise is aggregating who people think will win based on market data. Two different methodologies to produce two different statistics, resulting in two different percentages. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/11885",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5971/"
]
} |
12,057 | Why have Putin and Kim Jong Un publicly supported Trump? Presumably they want Trump to win, but they must know that they themselves are wildly unpopular in America. The leaders of Russia and North Korea endorsing that candidate is, (I would think to most Americans), a reason to vote against Trump, not for him. Shouldn't Putin and Kim Jong Un rather endorse Hillary Clinton if they want Trump to win? | Obviously I can't speak for Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un but the most likely explanation is that they're not doing this for a US audience. It is much more likely that they are pitching their support for its reaction in their own countries. For example, President Putin is most likely using this as part of the narrative that the western establishment is trying to restart the Cold War. Something along the lines of Look, the US people support someone who is friendly to Russia, but the US government isn't, so it doesn't represent the views of the US people. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12057",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8103/"
]
} |
12,327 | May a former U.S. president be part of a successor's administration? More specifically, may Hillary Clinton make Barack Obama a member of her cabinet? Are there even any historic precedents for such a move? | The relevant legislation appears to be the United States constitution (which defines some of the processes and procedures around the office of the President) and the United States Code (which includes some description of the scope of the Executive branch). The only specific proscription on the activities of former presidents seems to be the 22nd Amendment which states that No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. It's fairly clear that this doesn't apply to other executive offices. In practice this is fairly unlikely to happen, if only because of the distracting sideshow of having one's predecessor in the job hanging around. The only remotely similar case I can think of is that of William Taft who eight years after serving as America's 27th President was appointed Chief Justice, and thus head of the judicial branch. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12327",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/4857/"
]
} |
12,421 | I watched the debate , and I'm wondering what is going on with Donald Trump's tax return. I heard Hillary say the deal is either he's (1) less wealthy than he claims to be, (2) not making the charitable contributions he claims to, or (3) not paying federal taxes. I also read in Fortune that: Every major party candidate since Richard Nixon in 1972 has made their returns public before election day. Relevant Questions for Clarification on Topic Which exact documents is he reluctant to disclose? Is there anything in these documents that could disqualify him from being President? I wasn't sure if there could be something that may tie his taxes, debt, etc. to a foreign entity or something applicable to cause a conflict of interest for a POTUS (Is there such a thing?) Is there any legitimacy to any of the three concerns Hillary expressed as to why he'd not want to share his tax information with the American people? | Answers to clarification questions There are no "rich people" forms. However, there are forms that are far more likely to be interesting when a rich person files them. For example, when someone claims charitable donations on Schedule A or 8283, they need to list the donations. He also has to write out what personal business related tax deductions he's taking on his Schedule C tax forms. There's also a lot of single use forms. The typical filer only fills out one or two. And of course many of his forms are going to be multiple pages where a typical person only uses part of one page. There are very few actual disqualifications for President. He needs to be a "natural born citizen", a US resident for at least fourteen years, and at least thirty-five years of age. He can't have been President previously for six or more years. His tax forms won't say anything about his citizenship and are unlikely to contain information suggesting his age is below thirty-five or that he has been President previously. It is conceivable but unlikely that they show that Trump was claiming residency outside the United States. It's far more likely that they show information that would make people not vote for him because they look bad. Such information would not be disqualifying as I would use the word but could still be negative. Yes. Trump is clearly hiding his tax forms. As his sons ( Eric and Don, Jr. ) have indicated, the main reason for this is that many people won't understand the information he filed. The most charitable reading of this is that his taxes are complex and complicated. A less charitable way of taking this is that his forms show him taking deductions to which he is not entitled or not counting as income things that he should have. Note that the claim that his taxes have been audited for the last fifteen years suggests that the latter interpretation is correct. The IRS has limited funds for audits . The only way they could justify multiple audits is if the previous ones made them more money than they cost. Trump's sons may believe that this indicates that the IRS behaved inappropriately, but the neutral arbiter of the US court system apparently wasn't supportive. IRS audits are different from SEC audits or other government audits. Other audits are to detect wrong doing. It's expected for them to cost money and they are budgeted to do so. Tax audits are to increase revenue. Also note the following from the IRS Audit FAQ : Generally, the IRS can include returns filed within the last three years in an audit. Additional years can be added if a substantial error is identified. Generally, if a substantial error is identified, the IRS will not go back more than the last six years. Trump has said that his current audits date back to 2008. That is well over the three year limit, suggesting that either he is getting different treatment or that there was a substantial error on his returns. Trump less wealthy than he says Trump has consistently claimed more wealth than other sources think he has. He has put it at $10 billion or more, while Forbes has him at $4.5 billion and Fortune at $3.75 billion. Tax returns would have the exact numbers for both revenue and expense. They also might hint at debt numbers, as they would show interest paid. Trump overstating charitable contributions Trump said that he was going to donate to veterans . He failed to do so. He was caught out on it. He eventually made the donation. So, yes, there is good reason to think that he would lie about making charitable donations. Note that he has other explanations for this. Trump may not pay taxes Trump did not deny paying zero taxes in the debate. He said that if he was, it was proof of his good business sense. Absent a denial, that seems fully justified. Of course, that would mean that Hillary Clinton's claim that Trump's tax plan would reduce his taxes is bunk, but that's politics. There's no compiler to enforce coherence of positions. She can claim both that Trump isn't paying taxes and that his tax plan would reduce his taxes. And we can make fun of her for being inconsistent the same way we make fun of Trump for buying his suits from China while saying that it is wrong for people to do so. Appropriateness of criticism In the tax forms Mitt Romney released in 2012, he actually didn't take some of the deductions to which he was entitled to increase his apparent tax rate. Romney had two big problems in public perception of his tax rate. First, he tithed 10% of his income to religious charities, which was deductible. Second, most of his income was investment income, which gets a privileged rate. The point of this comparison to Romney is that Romney did experience negative results from releasing his taxes. So Trump has reason to believe that his tax returns would be (mis)interpreted in the same way. It's not clear that Trump is going to have problems with donating too much to charity (too much to have a politically correct tax rate), but a high amount of investment income is very likely. Also, Trump is likely to have a higher business income than Romney. People might use his revenue numbers as a base rather than his income (profit) numbers. Just as an aside, I personally have no problem with Presidential candidates or anyone else not paying taxes on charitable donations. To my mind, they should be subtracted from the denominator when calculating the tax rate. However, when those numbers are actually calculated currently they do not do this. This has the effect of making those who donate a lot to charity look like they pay a lower tax rate than they really do. Note that it is entirely possible that Trump's tax returns are clean as a whistle. If so, it's rather silly for him not to show them. Thus, it's plausible to suspect that there is something that either appears wrong (e.g. a low effective tax rate) or which is wrong (e.g. inappropriately taken deductions). So long as he refuses to release his returns, it's reasonable for Clinton to speculate as to why. Similarly, it's reasonable for Trump to speculate as to why she deleted her emails or refuses to release her transcripts. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12421",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7229/"
]
} |
12,506 | The US presidential Republican nominee Donald Trump stated that he did not rule out using nuclear weapons in the fight against the terrorist organization ISIS. I would like to gain more information about what would happen if someone did use nuclear weapons. To bound the defenses of the devil's advocate somewhat, suppose: the nuclear weapons used would be relatively low-energy (bottom 10% in the current stockpile) and small in number (<10 over 4 years). there's zero immediate collateral damage against innocent civilians in these strikes. What are the likely negative consequences that would follow (any aspect: moral, environmental, political, legal, strategical/militarily etc.)? | There is no particular benefit to using a nuclear weapon. We have some conventional bombs that rival a small nuke in terms of destructive power, without the lasting fallout. Using a nuke would basically be using a sledge hammer to swat a fly, leaving lasting radiation damage that affects friendlies, non-enemies, and civilians alike. Once a nuke is used on a site, its not like we can turn that area over to a friendly local force to use and rebuild. The location would basically be unusable for eternity. It would suggest to allies and enemies the world over that use of nuclear weapons is acceptable, and they might set their own parameters for using such weapons, which could be at odds with our own parameters. It would hand our enemies a great propaganda tool about the "Great Satan" (or whatever the en-vogue term is), and justify their own actions because we used nukes. In short: No need; All downside; No Upside. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12506",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/1895/"
]
} |
12,521 | I've long hypothesised that a certain phenomenon may exist, and I wonder if there's any actual research on the subject. I'm asking for research, statistics, etc. on a macro level. However, I think it's easier if I describe the concept on a micro-level, using Bob as an example. This is only an illustration of the concept, it's not the actual question: Bob has political views that are not considered politically correct by society at large. Some of them are considered racist by many. Some of the proposals he supports are considered unrealistic, populist or very detrimental by mainstream outlets. The views Bob holds are often warned against as racist, dangerous, etc. by media, academics, large-party politicians, etc. Now, in spite of these views being seen as politically incorrect, Bob still holds them. However, during lunch hour, when his colleagues talk negatively about those very views, he does not join the discussion. Instead, he pretends he agrees with his colleagues, or at least, he keeps his mouth shut. Not only is he afraid of being socially excluded at work, on a certain level he is also internally embarrassed and somewhat conflicted about the views. So he keeps these views secret, hiding them from his family, friends and even strangers. He also feels embarrassed within himself over this. However, in spite of the embarrassment, his predominant feeling is that the views are correct. There is an upcoming election, and one of the candidates or parties promotes many of the same "politically incorrect" views that Bob holds. One day, Bob is called up by a pollster. They ask him who he intends to vote for in the upcoming election. Even though Bob doesn't know this person, he still doesn't like to reveal his secret views to another human being. (Even a stranger.) So, he says that he is going to vote for another party/candidate. Or he declines to answer. However, when the actual election comes, he can vote without saying it to another human being. He can just drop his vote in the ballot box. So he does so, for the candidate/party he actually likes. (The "politically incorrect" one.) So, what I'm asking is: Is there research or statistics showing whether controversial or "politically incorrect" candidates/parties tend to do better or worse in actual elections than in polls? I realize defining what a "politically correct" or controversial candidate/party means is somewhat subjective. But most political research involves some subjective judgements. Reason for bounty: I am happy with the currently accepted answer, and tend to support its ideas personally. However, during a course on philosophy of science at Oslo Metropolitan University, my lecturer was discussing this exact topic. I brought up social desirability bias and she seemed almost dismissive of it, saying pollsters and statisticians have ways to account for that, and she brought up some other theories (such as respondents in polls not actually matching the voting population. For example, the voters of Candidate A may really dislike polls, or not have telephones). To be honest, I am not sure I agree with my lecturer, but I still want to hear some various perspectives and get more responses to this question. I am really happy with the accepted answer, and personally it rings true to me. The purpose of the bounty is just as the notice says, to "draw attention". I am open to other answers and theories, it would be interesting. | One term for this effect is " Social Desirability bias " Social desirability bias is a social science research term that describes the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting "good behavior" or under-reporting "bad", or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious problem with research with self-reports, especially questionnaires. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences. Kyle Dropp, the director of polling company "Morning Consult", explicitly attributed this effect as a likely reason for discrepancy between polls and vote counts for Donald Trump (who's a poster child for "politically incorrect candidate" and, I'm willing to bet, an inspiration for your question) in 2016 Republican Primaries in US, as discussed in my answer here . An interesting data for this comes from comparing person-conducted polls compared to online surveys (quotes from LA Times 's surprisingly insightful article on the topic: " Polls may actually underestimate Trump's support, study finds "): .. confirmed that "voters are about six points more likely to support Trump when they’re taking the poll online then when they’re talking to a live interviewer,” said Dropp. Some significant number of Trump supporters, especially those with college educations, are "less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, said the firm's polling director, Kyle Dropp. The most telling part of the experiment, however, was that not all types of people responded the same way. Among blue-collar Republicans, who have formed the core of Trump's support, the polls were about the same regardless of method. But among college-educated Republicans, a significant difference appeared, with Trump scoring 9 points better in the online poll . UPDATE 2016/11/09 : FiveThirtyEight in their post-election analysis also noted similar effect (thought not every pollster seems to agree) in general election: Several pollsters rejected the idea that Trump voters were too shy to tells pollsters whom they were supporting. But James Lee of Susquehanna Polling & Research Inc. said his firm combined live-interview and automated-dialer calls, and Trump did better when voters were sharing their voting intention with a recorded voice rather than a live one . Women who voted for Trump might have been especially reluctant to tell pollsters, said David Paleologos of Suffolk University. The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll corroborated that: “Women who said they backed Trump were particularly less likely to say they would be comfortable talking to a pollster about their vote .” A related effect (or rather, a particular specific instance of Social desirability bias) was mentioned in the comments by @Sjuan76: Bradley effect . Quoting Wiki summary: The Bradley effect (less commonly the Wilder effect) is a theory concerning observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some United States government elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. The theory proposes that some voters who intend to vote for the white candidate would nonetheless tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for the non-white candidate. It was named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor's race despite being ahead in voter polls going into the elections. The Bradley effect posits that the inaccurate polls were skewed by the phenomenon of social desirability bias. Specifically, some white voters give inaccurate polling responses for fear that, by stating their true preference, they will open themselves to criticism of racial motivation. Members of the public may feel under pressure to provide an answer that is deemed to be more publicly acceptable, or 'politically correct'. ... Some analysts have dismissed the theory of the Bradley effect, or argued that it may have existed in past elections, but not in more recent ones, such as when Barack Obama was elected and reelected President of the United States in 2008 and 2012 respectively. Others believe that it is a persistent phenomenon. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12521",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8260/"
]
} |
12,541 | More than 140 people were killed and over 525 wounded on Saturday, by a Saudi Arabian airstrike on a funeral. (See nytimes , rt , theguardian , and foxnews .) The questions are: Who supplies Saudi Arabia with weapons? Is there any data (official, if exist, and if not, estimates) about portion for each country? Can international laws ban selling weapons to a country that misuses them? | Who supplies Saudi-Arabia with weapons? As you can read on the Wikipedia article on the Royal Saudi Air Force and Saudi-Arabian ground forces , Saudi Arabia has the following aircraft capable of performing ground strikes: 154 McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle's (United States) 64 Eurofighter Typhoon's (Germany/UK/Italy/Spain joint venture) 80 Panavia Tornado IDS (Germany/UK/Italy joint venture) 92 AF-64 Apache attack helicopters (United States) They further have 86 F-15C's (United States) which are pure air-superiority fighters not equipped to attack ground targets and various unarmed aircraft supplied by UK, US, Pakistan, Switzerland, France, Sweden, Ukraine and Italy. Their main suppliers for tanks and heavy artillery are the US and France, minor suppliers are UK, Brazil and China. Russia has agreed to supply Saudi Arabia with air defence missiles. Personal firearms are supplied by Belgium, Germany, Austria, Russia and the US. What can the international community do to prevent weapon trading? The United Nations Security Council can enact sanctions against individual countries. A commonly used sanction against countries which are considered a security threat are trade embargoes which forbid all UN countries from exporting weapons to a country . Such a decision by the security council can be vetoed by any of the UN veto powers. The United States, United Kingdom and France are among these veto powers, so they would consider their own economical interests before allowing such sanctions to pass. Also, Saudi-Arabia has a lot of control over the global oil market, which gives them quite a lot of leverage against the international community. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12541",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7739/"
]
} |
12,661 | Donald Trump occasionally claims that the election in November is rigged and stated during the 3rd presidential debate that he "will keep you in suspense" . Election Day hasn't even arrived and he is hinting that he might not accept it. Many Republicans have denounced it, including Paul Ryan . Even his running mate Mike Pence and his daughter Ivanka Trump doesn't agree with him. Usually, a candidate will only challenge the results after it is out, not 2-3 weeks before the election. So, why does he refuse to commit that he will accept the outcome of the election? | DISCLAIMER: Obviously, there's no way to tell for sure. However, there are many likely/possible factors: He wants to leave his options open. All else being equal, having an option to contest the election as fraud is better (if your goal is to win), than deliberately, in advance, canceling out that option by a public declaration. Not because of this election, or Trump, or anything else, but because options are ALWAYS valuable. (I'm leaving aside secondary considerations such as whether his stance may have negative consequences, meaning it's not Ceterus parabus). The above point was meant as "options in a political sense". But it's also useful to him as individual. People have complex motivations. If nothing else, that option has value for Trump the individual (he can negotiate something nice for himself, in exchange for accepting, after the election is over, from Hillary - and don't think Trump is not smart and experienced and cynical enough not to realize that). He doesn't like to do what he's told. This much seems fairly obvious about his personality. He may very well see the demand to accept election results as yet another unreasonable "do this" from people he has no inclination to hear demands from (establishment, media, political opponents, you name it) He got as far as he did with the electorate, in part, on a platform of winning and being a fighter. The base that votes for him, in large part, is voting not for specific policies, but for "can do", "win at all costs", attitude, after being saddled for 2 decades with - using Trump's terminology - "losers" (specific ways of losing vary - either letting the opposition dictate the terms of discourse and the struggle, by refusing to use all available tactics; or always folding in negotiations like GOP in the House kept doing with Obama; or simply not getting desired outcomes - and specifics are largely irrelevant to the overall sentiment ). As such, should he decide to do a "loser" move by pre-emptively cutting off "Not accepting" tactic, it will hurt him with his base's engagement and morale. The overall "fraud" / "steal election" narrative is part of motivating the base. If they feel like the election outcome is threatened by said alleged fraud, they will be more motivated to work to elect him (volunteer, donate, make sure people turn out to vote). Remember that the country is split close to 50-50, and in a lot of close swing states, turnout is key to winning , and that's driven in large part by motivation. This keeps him in spotlight. Being in spotlight is good for his candidacy in general (especially for something that isn't majorly negative for him, or playing into Hillary's typical negative narratives, which this one isn't). And something his ego greatly desires as well. The exact quote in the OP's question ("will keep you in suspense") seems like strong proof this is part of motivation. This approach, while having possible upsides listed above, has very little downsides for him. Yeah, I suppose there will be indignation from the usual suspects (if the "news headlines" popup from Yahoo! news on my phone, timely showing just 5 minutes ago, is any indication). But seriously, does anyone really expect anyone to stop voting for Trump based on this (or to suddenly decide to vote for Hillary if they were undecided)? This 100% in line with anything so far known about Trump , and definitely not an earth shattering revelation about his character or tactics (remember the kerfuffle about GOP nomination acceptance vs. 3d party run if he loses the primaries?). Yes, this approach may have hurt some "moderate" (or as he would say, "loser"), candidate from GOP. I don't realistically see it hurting Trump. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12661",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9638/"
]
} |
12,755 | In the event a President is accused or found guilty of a serious crime while in office, can they pardon themselves for it? | It remains unclear if the President can pardon himself. However, the Constitution gives broad leeway to who a President can pardon. Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President the right to pardon: [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Consequences aside, the Constitution does not explicitly forbid a President to pardon himself, nor does it allow him to do so. This has never happened before. Its worth noting that former President Richard Nixon may have considered pardoning himself after the Watergate scandal. His Office of Legal Consul issued a ruling saying that he couldn't and in the end, he resigned and his successor, Gerald Ford pardoned him. Nixon wasn't indicted for the scandal. This ruling was never challenged in court, so any controversy would eventually end up in the Supreme Court. More information in these articles: Can President Clinton Pardon Himself? Pardon FAQ from democrats.com | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12755",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5870/"
]
} |
12,756 | In the 90s, there was a PSA where Spider-Man tells people to register to vote (at their local video store, strangely enough): At one point, Spider-Man signs his name on a voter registration form not as Peter Parker, but as Spider-Man! In reality, would a costumed vigilante like Spider-Man be able to legally register to vote like he does in this video, without revealing his secret identity? Let's assume he is registering to vote in New York City, since that is where he does his crime fighting. I'm interested in today's voting laws, although if the rules were different at the time of this PSA, I'd be happy to hear about that too. | Does Spider-Man meet the requirements to register? According to the New York Board of Elections site , here is the criteria to register to vote: Be a United States citizen The application form simply asks you to check Yes or No and does not require any accompanying documentation. So since Peter Parker is a United States citizen, he can truthfully check this off on his Spider-Man voter registration. Note that there was a 2014 bill to allow illegal immigrants in New York to be allowed to vote. Should a bill like that pass, that would probably waive this requirement. Be 18 years old by December 31 of the year in which you register Spider-Man hasn't always been over 18 (he was in his mid teens in his early appearances), but we'll assume that he is currently eligible. Like with his citizenship, no documentation is necessary to register. Note that when Spider-Man debuted in 1962, the minimum voting age was 21. The Twenty-sixth Amendment was ratified in 1971 reducing the age to 18. Live at your present address at least 30 days before an election I believe that Spider-Man could pass this requirement without providing a documented address because homeless people are allowed to vote in New York. From the National Coalition for the Homeless (emphasis mine): Pitts v. Black , 608 F.Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Plaintiffs challenged a New York State Election Law provision forbidding people living on the streets from registering to vote. The District Court held that the New York City Board of Election’s application of the residency requirement disenfranchised an entire group of people, which is forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause. The court found that a person’s “residence” is the place at the center of the individual’s life and the place where he/she presently intends to remain . The court reasoned that people need only have a specific location that they consider their “home base” — the place where one returns regularly, manifests an intent to remain, and can receive messages and be contacted. Spider-Man could consider New York City his "home base", since he returns to it regularly, manifests an intent to remain, and can receive messages and be contacted (which he often does by various signals or a notice in the Daily Bugle). Not be in prison or on parole for a felony conviction Despite all the crimes that he's been accused of, Spider-Man has been fortunate enough to avoid prison and parole, so he has no problem with this. Not be adjudged mentally incompetent by a court J. Jonah Jameson may call him mentally incompetent, but a court never has. Not claim the right to vote elsewhere I suppose that if Peter Parker claimed the right to vote, then this would legally prevent Spider-Man from registering to vote, since they are one and the same. But if Peter Parker did not claim the right to vote, I think that he would legally be in the clear on this. So could he actually vote on Election Day? First time voters in New York are required to provide identification on Election Day. From the online registration form (emphasis was in the original): We’ll try to check your identity before Election Day, through the DMV number (driver’s license number or non-driver ID number) , or the last four digits of your social security number , which you’ll fill in below. If you do not have a DMV or social security number , you may use a valid photo ID, a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or some other government document that shows your name and address. You may include a copy of one of those types of ID with this form— be sure to tape the sides of the form closed. If we are unable to verify your identity before Election Day, you will be asked for ID when you vote for the first time. Spider-Man doesn't have a driver's license (despite the fact that in one incarnation he had the Spider-Cycle ) or a social security number, so he can't use that. Since Spider-Man doesn't have utilities or a bank account under his name. However, he has gotten paychecks before, like in his first appearance in Amazing Fantasy #15 where he worked as an entertainer: Given that he has trouble cashing paychecks, there would probably be some who would probably doubt whether or not that was valid. However, there is the option of a government document with a name and address. Presumably S.H.I.E.L.D., being the branch of a government that deals with superheroes, could issue such a document. If nothing else, some sort of government dossier that says "Spider-Man, works in New York City" would meet the letter of the law. With either a paycheck or a government document, Spider-Man would be legally allowed to vote. Will he have to prove it's him on Election Day? One issue that Spider-Man might face is same one he faced when trying to cash a check in his first issue: how can he prove he's Spider-Man and not someone else dressed in the same outfit? Given the number of supervillains who have tried to impersonate him over the years, it's not an unrealistic concern. Probably he could get another superhero (Tony Stark?) to sign an affidavit saying that it is him. Can Spider-Man vote if he signs an affadavit? As of 2012, New York allows voters to cast ballots by affadavit saying that they are legally registered to vote. This was due to Hurricane Sandy destroying many polling sites, so voters were allowed to go elsewhere to vote. Since polling sites only have records for their own voters, a signed affadavit was permitted. Given all this my answer is that Yes, Spider-Man can register to vote and would be legally allowed to actually vote on Election Day. However, he's going to have a lot of public opinion resistance from J. Jonah Jameson (and renewed calls for Voter ID laws in future elections) if he does so. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12756",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6511/"
]
} |
12,812 | I've read many articles on Hillary's email issue. To me, it seems like she was just a bit careless and she has no bad intentions, and the FBI knows that. So why is it that the FBI is so persistent on further investigation to this case? | Why is the FBI making such a big deal out Hillary Clinton's private email server? Because she: Violated laws and rules by using personal email server Performed actions that risked classified information being exposed Violated laws and rules by deleting emails (importantly, by violating Freedom of Information Act, basically eliminating ability for citizens to determine if she did anything wrong) Examples : Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email . Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that: “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.” Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Veterans for a Strong America has filed a lawsuit against the State Department over potential violations of FOIA. Joel Arends, chairman of the non-profit group, explained to the Washington Examiner that their FOIA request over the Benghazi affair specifically asked for any personal email accounts Secretary Clinton may have used: “'At this point in time, I think we're the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,' Arends said of his group's Benghazi-related request.” Sources : http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/ http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/a-guide-to-clintons-emails/ she has no bad intentions First of all, they do not know that 100%. Absent a functional mind-reading technology, knowing someone's intentions with certainty is impossible. Having said that, there is absolutely no legitimate excuse [1] for a government official to set up a private email server for their work . Anyone in that position ought to just use corporate (government in this case) email, the way 99% of the American workforce who emails do - there's just zero reason not to. [1] - Yes, i'm aware that some people make an argument that the "reason" was "government-issued blackberry can only use one email account". However, she didn't need to use a second work-related account; and no government regulation prohibits having a personal cell phone for access to personal email , therefore this does not constitute legitimate excuse. "I Wanna, and it's more convinient" is an excuse that is not legitimate even for teenagers, never mind government officials. For reference, in many industries, sending material non-public information over non-corporate email is grounds for termination for cause. More importantly, commission of a crime is not contingent on intentions. If I go, and with good intentions, commit a crime, I would still get arrested and convicted (although in some cases, intentions might impact on the sentencing, they do not impact on the verdict ). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12812",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9883/"
]
} |
12,890 | I was going to ask this question when I heard Hillary Clinton said in the first presidential debate that: "Trump has said women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men." I thought she misspoken or I misunderstood, so I didn't ask the question here. But today, Clinton tweeted: Donald Trump's equal pay plan for women: "You're gonna make the same if you do as good a job." So there is no doubt that Clinton thinks Trump's equal pay plan is bad, otherwise she wouldn't use it to attack Trump, right? To me, Trump's equal pay plan, as the way Clinton quoted, is the definition of fairness, i.e. equal pay for equal work. So, my question is: what is the rationale/logic behind the opposition of Trump's equal pay plan? EDIT: I'm not interested in Trump's equal pay plan; my question is what's the possible reason or rationale behind Hillary Clinton's opposition of the following two quotes: "women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men" "You're gonna make the same if you do as good a job." | "women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men" "You're gonna make the same if you do as good a job." These statements are controversial because they are perceived to imply that the gender pay gap is entirely due to women doing less a good job than men. People who are critical of those statements might argue that many women are already doing as good a job as men, but are not getting equal pay nevertheless. Note: Whether the gender pay gap is real or not is beyond the scope of the question . I redirect any discussion on this topic to the relevant question on Skeptics.SE . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12890",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/2338/"
]
} |
13,056 | Here is a preliminary image from The Guardian showing the individual counties during the 2016 election in the United States: There appears to be a line of counties in blue, curving from Maine in the north-east to Mississippi in the south. Those counties would have voted for the Democratic party, but they are massively surrounded by Republican counties. Is there something in common between them? | A combination of the Black Belt and Northeastern region What first appeared to be a long unbroken line of counties from north to south actually seems to be made of two major parts. 2016 elections [8] Northeastern The blue counties north of Virginia are actually part of a larger area that also skirts the Great Lakes. The reasons why Northeastern United States votes Democrat (or used to) are complex and changing (it was mostly Republican before 1990), but it is unrelated to the rest of the curve. The emergence of the Northeast as a potential Democratic firewall has been a long time in the making. The steady realignment of the South toward the Republicans, which rendered the party increasingly conservative, called forth a counter-realignment among moderates in the North. [11] The voting patterns of the Northeastern region would require an answer of its own, but it is related to population density, education, urban centers and social and cultural differences between the North and South. However, this answer mainly focuses on the Black Belt. Black Belt The southern part of the "curve" is commonly called the "Black Belt" : There’s an arc of Democratic strength across the interior South. This is the old “Black Belt,” named for the fertile soil that gave rise to cotton plantations. These areas are still populated by a high percentage of African-Americans even 150 years after the end of slavery, and they’re predominantly Democratic today. [1] Black population by county [3] Slavery and cotton picking The soil of the Southeastern regions is fertile and well-drained, making it ideal for cotton. The black population in this region today descends from the slaves that use to work the cotton fields. Over time this rich soil produced an amazingly productive agricultural region, especially for cotton. In 1859 alone a harvest of over 4,000 cotton bales was not uncommon within the belt. And yet, just tens of miles north or south this harvest was rare. Of course this level of cotton production required extensive labor. As Washington notes further in his autobiography, "The part of the country possessing this thick, dark, and naturally rich soil was, of course, the part of the South where the slaves were most profitable, and consequently they were taken there in the largest numbers. Later and especially since the war, the term seems to be used wholly in a political sense—that is, to designate the counties where the black people outnumber the white." [2] The Black Belt on election maps I went back to previous elections and found that the "blue Black Belt" has been present in many of them. 2000 elections [4] 1984 elections [5] However, as you go further back, the belt disappears from maps because African-Americans often didn't (or couldn't) vote: But the Black Belt has not always been visible on maps during elections. The Voting Rights Act, outlawing discriminatory voting practices, was passed in 1965. As result, a year earlier in the 1964 elections larger numbers of African Americans were excluded from the polls in Southern states. And, in turn, the blue band we see today was not visible. [2] 1924 elections [6] , note the uniform blue color across the South (for the red/blue swap, see the Southern Realignment or the Southern strategy ) The black Democrat vote Before 1948, there was no clear distinction in party identification for African-Americans, although "at no point from 1936 on, according to Joint Center data, has the Republican candidate for president gotten more than 40 percent of the black vote." [7] Black party identification [7] There are two major bumps in party identification: 1948 and 1964. In 1948, Democrat Harry Truman talked about civil rights in his state of the union address: Today, however, some of our citizens are still denied equal opportunity for education, for jobs and economic advancement, and for the expression of their views at the polls. Most serious of all, some are denied equal protection under the laws. Whether discrimination is based on race, or creed, or color, or land of origin, it is utterly contrary to American ideals of democracy. [10] This was followed by requests to Congress about, among other things, protecting the right to vote. [9] The second bump in 1964 was the Civil Rights Act by Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson . This Act would outlaw discrimination based on race and color and "ended unequal application of voter registration requirements". Although these two actions would strengthen the black vote for the Democratic Party, it would also make them mostly unelectable in the Deep South: When he signed the bill, President Lyndon Johnson reportedly said that Democrats would, as a result, lose the South for a generation. It's been longer than that. [7] References [1] What This 2012 Map Tells Us About America, and the Election , Nate Cohn and Toni Monkovic, 18 October 2016, The New York Times [2] How presidential elections are impacted by a 100 million year old coastline , Dr. M, 27 June 2012, Deep Sea News [3] Map of contiguous US, showing percentage of population self-reported as "Black," by census tract, 2000. , Wikimedia, by user Citynoise [4] Map showing the results by county of the 2000 United States presidential election specifically identifying the percentage received by the winning candidate in each county , Wikimedia, by user Tilden76 [5] Map showing the results by county of the 1984 United States presidential election specifically identifying the percentage recieved by the winning candidate in each county. , Wikimedia, by user Tilden76 [6] Presidential election results by county (1924) , Wikimedia, by user Tilden76 [7] When did black Americans start voting so heavily Democratic? , Philip Bump, 7 July 2015, The Washington Post [8] US elections 2016 live results , The Guardian [9] Race, Realignment, and the Election of 1948 , Jay Cost, 22 April 2009, Clear Politics [10] Harry S. Truman: Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union , The American Presidency Project [11] Northeast Is the Democrats' Firewall , E.J. Dionne, 27 September 2010, Real Clear Politics | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13056",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7694/"
]
} |
13,066 | Trump has just won the elections. Can he somehow stop the US from participating in the UN COP21 climate change agreement (which was already signed formally by the US)? Also I've read here that To take effect, the Paris Agreement needs formal ratification by 55 countries that account for 55 percent of global emissions. If the US can still bail out, would it also be possible that these critical thresholds are not reached? | No, Trump cannot undo the UN climate change agreement. All he can do is isolate the USA from participating in it. The USA signed the Paris Agreement on 22 April 2016, and became a formal Party to it on 3 September 2016 . John Kerry and his team put a lot of work into word-smithing it to ensure it could be agreed by the US president, without the Senate. It has now passed the two hurdles of at least 55 countries, and countries that represent at least 55% of global emissions, so it has already formally entered into force , as of earlier this month (Nov 2016). At time of writing, it had 103 parties representing 73.38% of global emissions ; without the USA, this would be 102 parties representing 55.49% of global emissions, so still exceeding the twin hurdles which were needed for it to enter into force in the first place. Trump, when president, could withdraw the USA's commitment to the Paris Agreement. However, the Agreement has already entered into force internationally, and all the remaining participants will continue to implement it. So Trump cannot undo the Paris Agreement. All he can do is isolate the USA from participating in it. Note that the 55-country, 55%-emissions thresholds are not ongoing criteria; instead, they are thresholds that need to be met once for the Paris Agreement to enter into force ( article 21 para 1, pdf p49 ): This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on
which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an
estimated 55 per cent of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited
their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. That has already happened, so there is no further legal significance attached to those thresholds. Article 28 (pdf p51, ibid ) deals with Parties withdrawing from the agreement: At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has
entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by
giving written notification to the Depositary. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date
of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date
as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also
having withdrawn from this Agreement. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13066",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9042/"
]
} |
13,075 | As it's obvious now, pre-election polling and forecast models were inconsistent with the vote count in this election cycle as not many predicted a Trump victory. Is there any particular reason why polling was so off? | Reasonable theories I have heard have included: A change in polling foundations (home phones become cell phones = limitations on traditional cold calling... and also the shift into online polls). Plus perhaps the diminishing patience people have with enduring the polling process (I believe the percentage of people who agree to it has dropped consistently) A hesitation/fear that keeps some people from admitting that they support a candidate who is being widely presented as detestable/deplorable in much of the public discussion/media. [apparently an effect common enough to have a term, see the Shy Tory Factor ... the possibility it might be important was even presciently suggested in a question here a couple weeks ago] A possible tendency for people to publicly show full support for minority/heroic candidates because it's the socially favorable thing to do, even when they're actually entertaining uncertainty internally. [this is along the lines of the Bradley Effect ] People failing to turn out as they've indicated they will... perhaps due to weather (though it's fairly unlikely this was a big factor in this election), a false sense of security (such as when the polls in the days leading up to and into election day suggest a comfortable victory!), or just a general failure to muster the effort/will to follow through with the voting. Regardless, there is a widespread trend of polls failing recently, and maybe even specifically underestimating the conservative side. In 2015, the UK Parliament was projected to come out about even between the top two parties, but the conservatives won by over 5%, ending up with the majority (which was considered to be a near 0% chance possibility as the day began), this summer Brexit passed (considered almost certain to fail as the day began, ended up passing by 4%), and last month the Colombian Peace Referendum failed (after being consistently polled to pass by about 10%). So perhaps this is a trend to be aware of going forward until polling methods can hopefully adapt. Others here have also pointed out there was an underforecast conservative swing in the 2016 Iceland election and changes in the Swedish election . Note, though, that most models showing the full spread of possibilities didn't say this was a set Clinton win, but that it leaned maybe 70-80% likely that Clinton would win. A 1 out of 5 chance of being wrong is not insignificant... If they say there's a 20% chance of rain today, you shouldn't be surprised if it does rain! In meteorology we've often got the same continuing struggles, particularly when it comes to issues like hurricane/storm forecasting; getting people to understand the uncertainty and full potentials of realistic possibilities. This is something we should keep on our media to better portray to us, and something school math courses could better focus on, perhaps being of significant benefit to a great many. Considering that most polls have maybe a 4-6% typical error, this result was really quite within the range of possibility for most (although their consistent bias suggests that there really are some fundamental shortcomings). But, still, most of the quality election forecasters did also measure in some considerations of this trend towards less poll reliability, and were urging caution regarding overconfidence in the indicated spread (as Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight did here on election morning). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13075",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9638/"
]
} |
13,081 | Let me preface this by saying I'm not American (but I'm British so I can't be too high and mighty about voting systems -Brexit). Last chance I got to look at the popular vote figures, Hillary is amazingly close (<100k votes) behind Trump. But I realise that irrespective of how many votes she gets from here on, Trump has won. So my question is: Has there ever been an elected president who was not first by measure of popular vote (not needing 50%, just more than anyone else)? I'm assuming there's not a long since forgotten rule that makes this an important question, but it's interesting nonetheless. | There sure have been a few instances of this occurring. 2000 Election This's the one that many people still remember. Gore won the popular vote by 0.51% while Bush won the electoral college. The tight margin in Florida automatically triggered a recount. Ultimately, a court case stopped the recount and Bush became President. It has also occurred in the 19th century -- 1824, 1876, and 1888 -- though they aren't that well known. However, it doesn't actually matter since only the electoral college counts. With this happening before, it isn't unprecedented if it happens again this year. The NYT does forecast Clinton to win the popular vote by around 1.2%. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13081",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10160/"
]
} |
13,094 | As the 2016 election results continue to come in, it looks pretty clear that Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote but will lose the electoral college. I know this has happened before and usually by very small margins but I was wondering is what the least amount of popular votes a candidate could get but still have enough states to win the electoral college? Assume we are talking roughly 125,000,000 votes (about how many were cast this election) | I don't know the exact number but, as a proportion of the votes cast, it's essentially 100%. Here's how to calculate it. Find the set of states with the largest population of possible voters but no more than 268 electoral college votes. In all of those states, let candidate A win 100% of the vote, with 100% turnout. In every other state, have just one person vote, and have that person vote for candidate B. This gives candidate A approximately 62,500,000 votes (assuming your electorate of 125M * and that A's states are about half the population) and candidate B gets at most 50 votes. So, in this admittedly highly contrived scenario, B wins the electoral college with something in the ballpark of 0.0001% of the popular vote. Note that a tied electoral college allows an even lower proportion of the popular vote since the House could choose resolve the tie in favour of the third-place candidate. That candidate could, in principle, have won a single state by getting the only vote that was cast there, and not got any other votes in the rest of the country. * It seems that the actual number of people who are eligible to vote is around 232 million though, of course, many of them don't vote at all. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13094",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10175/"
]
} |
13,114 | Given the recent results on the national election at the US, I have seen several protests here at Berkeley and the Oakland area. I am wondering whether there exists any legal option to prevent him from becoming president? I am asking this, because if there is no such option, I have troubles seeing what is the final objective of these riots and marches against Trump. | As of today (November 9th), the United States have not yet elected a president. They have elected an electoral college, which will elect a president on December 19th. Theoretically the electors could still change their mind and elect someone completely different. It is not unheard of that individual " faithless electors " vote different than mandated by the result in their state for whatever reason. In 21 states this is completely legal, and in many others the repercussions are minor. However you should not bet on this. Never in the history of the United States did enough electors do this to make someone else president than they should have. In 1836 , 23 faithless electors for Virginia were almost successful when it came to electing the vice president. But that was the closest faithless electors ever came to changing an election outcome. Another reason to protest against Trump now is to undermine his authority as president to convince Congress and Senate members to support him less in the upcoming years. A president can't do much without backing from Congress and the Senate. When a president suggests acts which are amazingly unpopular, party loyality might not be enough to prevent them from blocking them. So sending the message "We hate the president and when you let him do what he wants we will hate you too!" could have an influence. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13114",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10201/"
]
} |
13,201 | I've seen some of the YouTube and news outlet pieces on the mechanics of how the USA's electoral college voting system works. But if electors are supposed to follow the popular vote and the popular vote is for candidate A, then how does candidate B amass enough elector votes to win in A's place? In the case of the 2016 race just over, is this down to electors voting against their state? Looking at Al Gore's previous defeat by the electors, there was a not insignificant margin of half a million popular votes for him, was this then down to faithless electors too? EDIT: Follow-up; if the electoral votes can bring a different result than the popular vote then what use are polls and demographics assessments? Lots of media outlets are pointing to the "rise of the uneducated white male" in Trump's win, but I have to assume that electors have a certain standard of education and that some who voted for Trump this year are not all white or male... | The electors are supposed to follow the popular vote within their state. In other words, whichever party "won" the state gets all of the electoral college votes. They don't follow the national popular vote. This means that a candidate can win by a slight margin in states which have a disproportionately high number of electoral college votes compared to their population, and those electors will vote for them. While Trump has a lower national popular vote than Clinton, he has a higher popular vote in a number of states with disproportionately many electoral college votes. Consider a situation where you have only three states. Two states have 11 people in them and 3 electoral college votes (the minimum). One state has 100,000 people but only 5 electoral college votes. Candidate A can win with 6 votes against 5 in the two smaller states and win the electoral college, even if candidate B gets 100% of the vote in the larger state. In this contrived example, candidate B has practically 100% of the national popular vote, but candidate A wins because the vote result is not set up proportionally. In response to your follow-up question, polls often try to gather data by region to understand how those areas will vote, and how it will affect the election. The reason they're off isn't that they ignore the way the election works, but because they're not able to obtain complete and accurate data. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13201",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10290/"
]
} |
13,220 | In the USA, the President is elected by the Electoral College. After the United States Presidental Election, 2016 , Donald Trump was referred to as President-Elect as soon as his candidacy was projected to have enough electors. Apparently, this is officially recognised, since he met with President Obama and started receiving security briefings. How does it work that Trump is formally recognised as President-Elect when even though he has not yet formally been elected by the Electoral College? | I looked at the Wikipedia entry on the term, where they state this in the opening sentences: President-elect of the United States is the title used for an incoming president of the United States during the period between the general election on Election Day in November and noon Eastern Standard Time on Inauguration Day, January 20, during which the president-elect is not in office yet. My assumption was that the term itself was more or less used informally as a general rule and that there weren't any real definitions to when the starting and stopping of using that term to refer to someone. I was wrong, and enter the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 ( pdf ): (c) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2. Emphasis mine The term is being used such as to identify who apparently is going to be the next President. Power transitions are tough, especially in times when a big change in direction is most likely going to take place so it makes sense to try to give the incoming President as much time as possible to organize their team and hit the ground running as fast as possible. Absent a precedent-shattering event when the electoral college votes, the apparent winner of the general election will be the next President. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13220",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/130/"
]
} |
13,303 | In the UK there is a process used by doctors 50,000 times a year, and known as sectioning , where an individual can be detained against their will, under the Mental Health Act, if, in the opinion of two doctors (including one who is trained in psychiatry) and a social worker, they are a danger to themselves or to others. In an emergency this can be done by one doctor or a police officer. In the first instance detention can only last 72 hours and appeal can be made to a mental-health tribunal presided over by a judge. I assume that most States in the USA have similar provisions for detaining people who are ill and a danger to the public. What happens if a politician, heaven-forbid a president, were thought to be so unhinged that he or she were believed to be a danger? Would there we a process, either under the normal mental health laws, or some constitutional machinery for removing the president from a position of being a danger? I ask this question in all seriousness, bearing in mind that Trump is the oldest person to have been elected president, and early-onset dementia, or a stroke can lead to a seriously paranoid mind-set. | The Twenty-fifth Amendment which deals with the succession to the Presidency establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities. Disabilities includes insanity which is dangerous not only for the US citizens, but also for the whole world. According to the Constitutional Topic: Presidential Disability on www. usconstitution.net; Step 1 - declaration of disability To remove a President from power, the Vice President and a majority of
the department secretaries must send a message to the Speaker of the
House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate stating that the
President is unable to fulfill his duties as President. Note that the
majority is of "the executive departments" and not of "the Cabinet."
The Cabinet is often used as a shorthand term for the executive
departments, but the Cabinet actually consists of other persons, such
as the White House Chief of Staff and some agency heads. These people
are not a part of the 25th Amendment process. Once this message is signed and sent, the Vice President immediately
becomes Acting President. Step 2 - declaration of ability If the President is not physically disabled, such as being in a coma,
he may disagree with the actions of his Vice President and department
secretaries. If he does disagree and is able, he can send his own
message to the Speaker and President Pro Tem, stating that his is able
to perform as President. In this case, the President is immediately
restored to full power as President. Step 3 - redeclaration of disability Once the President disputes the original declaration, a clock starts
ticking. If within four days of the President's objection the Vice
President and the department secretaries again declare the President
disabled to the Speaker and the President Pro Tem, the decision of
disability falls to the Congress. Within 48 hours, the Congress must convene if it is not already in
session. Another clock then starts ticking. Twenty-one days after the
Vice President's second declaration, the Congress must decide if the
President is disabled. If the Congress so decides, by a required
two-thirds majority of each house, then the President must step aside
and the Vice President becomes Acting President. While the Congress
decides, the Vice President holds the position of Acting President. If
the Congress agrees that there is a disability, then the Vice
President continues as Acting President. If there is no two-thirds
majority within 21 days, the President resumes his position. Step 4 - resumption of power Though the 25th Amendment does not address the issue directly, it
never actually allows for the removal of the President - only for the
Vice President to become Acting President. There could come to pass a
time when the President is able to resume his duties. Presumably, if
the Vice President agrees at any time that the President is able, he
can give up his powers as Acting President. It also seems clear that
if the Vice President were to lose the support of more than half the
department secretaries, the President would also resume his duties. It will all depend on the judgement of Vice President, department secretaries and Congress. No President has been replaced by Vice President due to their disabilities in the US history. Eight Presidents were replaced due to death and the only case where Vice President became President due to resignation was Gerald Ford (replacing Richard Nixon). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13303",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6837/"
]
} |
13,319 | Hypothetically, if all states were to allocate their electors proportionally to the votes in their state, who would have won the last election? That is, let's say that there was a constitutional amendment in place that, instead of abolishing the electoral college, required that the votes be split in each state (somewhat like ME and NE but simpler.) The simplest system would be that each voter would be voting for a specific elector but let's assume a round-half-even approach to splitting up each states electors gives us a approximation of that. Or alternately, assume each citizen gets to vote for one elector for the congressional district and one senator electoral vote (each state split in half.) Also, let's ignore that such a system could have a profound impact on voting behavior and assume that the proportions of votes per candidate in each state would be consistent to what we saw in the actual election. | I calculated the vote allocation using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method (based on results as of November 9, 2016) applied to each individual state: Clinton 263 Trump 262 Johnson 10 Stein 2 McMullin 1 In the spirit of the Electoral College giving less populous states a boost in the vote, I altered the formula to award 2 votes per state to the winner of the popular vote of that state, and the remainder allocated via Webster/Sainte-Laguë: Trump 269 Clinton 259 Johnson 7 Stein 2 McMullin 1 For comparison, here I applied Webster/Sainte-Laguë to the entire United States population without splitting them based on state: Clinton 256 Trump 255 Johnson 17 Stein 1 McMullin 1 Other 8 (these were not separated in the data source) | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13319",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10178/"
]
} |
13,402 | I am not from the US but I keep reading that Hillary is perceived as untrustworthy. I tried looking for the things she actually said or did to earn this image, but I can't find many. So I'm looking for a list of verifiable things that she actually said or did, to earn her this image (without judging whether or not she deserved it). So far, what I've found are the the email controversy , the pneumonia episode , her changing position on gay marriage , and her changing position on free trade . What else is there? | There's a lot of things, most easily found through Google ("lies Hillary Clinton told" produces many results). Political Insider suggests: Dead Broke – In an interview, Clinton stated that she “came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.” Something even the left-leaning Politifact found to be false. Sniper Fire – During the 2008 campaign, Clinton said she came under sniper fire in Bosnia during the ’90s. She went so far as to claim her group ran “with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” Video of her actual arrival surfaced showing a very calm scene instead, and the Democrat would quickly say she simply misspoke. Immigrant Grandparents – When discussing immigrant stories, Clinton asserted that “all my grandparents… came over here.” It was another story Politifact said was false, as only one of her grandparents was an immigrant. Sir Edmund Hillary – Seems Clinton can’t even bring herself to tell the truth about her own name. She claimed to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, one of the first men to climb Mt. Everest. One small problem though, the explorer didn’t climb Everest until Clinton was 6 years old. The Few, The Proud, The Marines – Very recently, Clinton claimed to have been turned down by the Marines when she applied in 1975. Washington Post fact-checkers quickly realized the absurdity that a rising legal star at the time, and soon to be wife of Bill Clinton, would drop everything and ship off with the Marines. They gave her a couple of Pinocchios for her tall tale. Secret E-Mails – Former Secretary of State Clinton claimed her infamous private e-mail server was set up in “accordance with the rules and the regulations in effect.” A federal judge disagreed, saying Clinton “violated government policy” when she used a private server to store official State Department messages. Benghazi – Clearly the most reprehensible lie of them all – Clinton failed to tell the truth about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi. She claimed for weeks, standing over the flag-draped coffins of murdered Americans, that an insensitive YouTube video had incited the violence that occurred that night. Why? Because a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 – which it was – would have destroyed President Obama’s re-election chances. But hey, at the end of the day it’s worth it to Clinton to tell a politically expedient lie, so long as her party can stay in power. I'm not sure how Political Insider stands politically, although those seem to be written by one of Clinton's political opponents. I don't see six of them in your list. If those seven aren't enough, a couple more sources: Politifact gave her seven Pants on Fire! ratings. While many of Politifact's ratings involve exaggerations rather than outright lies, the Pants on Fire! rating are things that are deliberately false and "make ridiculous claims". Politifact claims to be neutral. If anything, they may lean left--towards Clinton (many conservatives would contest the "may"). Sean Hannity suggests thirty-six statements as lies. Note that Hannity is politically opposed to Clinton, so take his list with a grain of salt. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13402",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
13,599 | In the Wikipedia article for the results of the 2016 US Presidential Election , it shows 1 red vote in Maine: Also, the "States carried" says "ME-02". What does that mean? I thought winning a state meant the winner gets to select the electors for that state. | Maine and Nebraska award their electoral college votes to the winners of each congressional district. That's two votes to the statewide winner (Senate seats are statewide and there are two per state). And one vote for each House district. ME-01 means the first congressional (House) district of Maine. The voters there voted for Hillary Clinton. ME-02 is the second congressional district of Maine. Those voters voted for Donald Trump. Overall, Maine voted for Clinton, so she received three votes, one for ME-01 and two for the state. By convention, they only mention explicitly the vote that does not align with the statewide vote. In 2008 , the same thing happened with NE-02 which is the Nebraskan district for Omaha. Barack Obama won the urban district but lost the other two. ME and NE are the postal codes for Maine and Nebraska respectively. They just happen to be similar. Using the postal codes with two digits is a common way to represent congressional districts. If you see something like WY-AL, that means that the state (e.g. Wyoming) has just one at-large congressional district. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13599",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5817/"
]
} |
13,718 | During the last decade and a half, the US has housed prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and has been leasing it from the Cuban government for 55 years. Cuba has never cashed the checks Castro was very anti-imperialism and US. So why has the Cuban government not asked them to leave? It's like China building a prison in the US where the house their most dangerous criminals! What does Cuba gain from leasing it to the US? They obviously aren't interested in monetary gain as they never cashed the checks. | So why has the Cuban government not asked them to leave? The simple answer to that is that they have. From Wikipedia : The United States assumed territorial control over the southern portion of Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty of Relations . The United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over this territory, while recognizing that Cuba retains ultimate sovereignty. The current government of Cuba regards the U.S. presence in Guantánamo Bay as illegal and insists the Cuban–American Treaty was obtained by threat of force and is in violation of international law. Some legal scholars judge that the lease may be voidable. And later After the Cuban Revolution, Dwight D. Eisenhower insisted the status of the base remain unchanged, despite Fidel Castro's objections. Since then, the Cuban government has cashed only one of the rent checks from the U.S. government, and even then only because of "confusion" in the early days of the leftist revolution, according to Castro. The remaining un-cashed checks made out to "Treasurer General of the Republic" (a title that ceased to exist after the revolution) are kept in Castro's office stuffed into a desk drawer. They've asked (e.g. in 2016 ). The United States (US) has not left. The basis of not leaving (again from Wikipedia): In 1934 a new Cuban-American Treaty of Relations reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and its trading partners free access through the bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars, and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it or until the U.S. abandoned the base property. The US has never agreed to ending the treaty , and it requires both parties to agree to end it. Reading the sources implies that ending the treaty is something that Fidel Castro requested repeatedly, but I can't find a primary source actually stating that. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13718",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9016/"
]
} |
13,910 | The American CIA reportedly believes that the Russians, in the form of the Russian government and possibly private actors, went to signficant length (psych / cyber ops) to help Trump win. Having said that, could you provide a clear explanation of exactly why they would want that? The only explanation I've seen in the news is some vague reference to it having something to do with past business relationships with Russian billionaires. Is that complete/accurate? Is it just gratitude for past business deals or would they expect Trump to benefit them in the future as well (or is there some other element)? It couldn't have anything to do with his wife, could it? If not for the business relationships, I would've expected the Russians to prefer a Democrat, as Republicans are (in my perception) typically viewed as more aggressive towards rivals and less co-operative in international affairs. Note : Retrospectively this question is similar to a couple of others so I won't dispute it being marked as a dupe, but I think it's more broadly focused and has some good unique answers. | While Trump in general has been supportive of Putin and the Russian government, there are several specific policy reasons that they supported him. Trump will weaken US commitment to NATO For Vladimir Putin, the election of Donald Trump may undermine the NATO military alliance. Trump has said that the U.S. would not automatically defend its treaty allies and that we might withdraw forces from Europe and Asia. This weakening of the U.S. commitment to NATO comes at a time when the military alliance is seeking to deter Russia from threatening to annex the Baltic nations, as it did the Crimea. – New York Daily News Trump will consider recognizing Crimea as part of Russia Putin has rational motives for wanting Trump to win: Trump champions many foreign policies that Putin supports. Trump's most shocking, pro-Kremlin proposal is to "look into" recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia. President Barack Obama and nearly every member of Congress — Republican and Democrat — have rejected that idea vigorously. Only Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have recognized Russia's annexation of Crimea. Naturally, Putin would love to see the United States join that list. – Chicago Tribune Trump's views on the dangers of ISIS that some feel are overblown help justify Russian military actions within Syria Trump likely doesn’t know it, but his (absurd) idea that ISIS could mount a coup against the U.S. government from within the country is once again a gift to Putin. The Russian leader has been justifying his decision to send Russian forces to Syria on the basis that it protects Russian citizens from future terrorist attacks and the Russian government from destabilization. – The Fiscal Times | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/13910",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7999/"
]
} |
14,194 | What did the Secretary of State mean by this dichotomous ultimatum? Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both. Why should it be incompatible? If England, Denmark and Greece can be Christian states and Morocco and Saudi Arabia can be Islamic states, what did Kerry mean when he said this? | That's not what he said. John Kerry said : But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both –and it won’t ever really be at peace. So what he is trying to say here is that In his opinion, Israel should embrace a two state solution. If Israel does not split off Palestine into a separate state, it has to choose between being a Jewish state that does not represent the Palestinian Muslims. Or , it can be a democratic state that is majority Muslim. He is not saying that countries in general can't be both religious and democratic. His criticism is specific to Israel as a single state that includes the Palestinian areas. In fact, under his idealized two state solution, presumably both states would be religious and democratic. Israel would be Jewish and Palestine would be Muslim. In a way, this is an offering to Israel. If they surrender to his terms, he believes they could be Jewish and democratic in their portion of the current country. However, many people aren't reading it that way. There have been a number of criticisms of this stance. For example, it's not clear that the two states would achieve peace. This doesn't resolve the overall problem that most Middle Eastern Muslim countries do not support Israel's right to existence as a Jewish state , at least not popularly (the leadership may). Note that such criticisms have their own detractors. Obviously Kerry doesn't agree with this, and he's not unique in that. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14194",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11177/"
]
} |
14,218 | For instance, if I really hate littering, and I somehow become President of the United States, could I effectively make littering a capital offense by promising to immediately pardon anyone who kills a litterer? Could I have my political enemies killed by promising to pardon their killers? Are there any checks and balances on the pardon other than term limits and re-election? | For instance, if I really hate littering, and I somehow become
President of the United States, could I effectively make littering a
capital offense by promising to immediately pardon anyone who kills a
litterer? First this could be considered incitement as noted in this answer . Should something as explicit as this happen I would expect that swift action by congress to prevent this kind of corruption and sullying of the office. But, no, there is nothing beyond basic human decency and nearly assured repercussions to prevent it. The presumption is anyone who invests the time and money to rise to this position of power is not going to throw it all away on something like this. Lets look at an example that is more plausible. A president has a serious bias against non Christian persons of color. That president does not explicitly promise to pardon those who commit crimes against this class of people, but starts issuing daily pardons for white Christians arrested the day prior for those crimes. There is nothing that would prevent such a thing again beyond the fact that it would destroy their career, and probably get them impeached. Could I have my political enemies killed by promising the pardon their
killers? Yes. Now the rub here is that your assassins have no incentive to keep their mouths shut about their actions once they are pardoned. So it is really not a great incentive to commit the crime on its own. Further while the assassin and their accomplices may be pardoned, the president would still be on the hook for the crime. And the now pardoned assassins could be off the hook by simply telling their story and complying with the investigation. Impeding the investigation or lying about the crime is likely to be the only thing that would trip them up. If this were to come out I would expect not only that they would be impeached but that they would be arrested immediately pending criminal prosecution. While the pardon would likely be upheld it is not going to prevent the federal government from making the attempt to have the pardon annulled. It is possible as soon as the conspiracy is revealed that the president could be arrested as well and prevented from issuing a pardon. While that detention and prevention may be later found to be illegal, it will not afford the now impeached and incarcerated former president to be able to issue those pardons retroactively. Are there any checks and balances on the pardon other than term limits
and re-election? Yes abuse of the pardon could result in impeachment. Beyond that it has been affirmed multiple times that it is the authority of the president to issue pardons without the advice and consent of either the Supreme Court, or Congress. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14218",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10373/"
]
} |
14,260 | This has been in my mind for a while, so I am breaking the ice on the politics site. I am living in Romania (Eastern European country within the European Union), so this question might be too localized, although I have heard about similar problems in other European countries as well. Recently, we had a tremendous debate about the vaccination / immunization. This was especially relevant after some vaccine target diseases made some victims. E.g. Measles outbreak makes victims I am wondering why it is so hard to make vaccination mandatory by law? There are so many arguments for it, that I do not see any serious debate (except for political will) 1. Clinical studies - check here for reference - have shown high safety of the vaccines 2. Herd immunity - ( definition ) - the most tricky effect is that immunization must high enough at the population level to be effective. By not vaccinating your kid, you are actually exposing other children (or even adults in some cases). 3. Efficacy - has been proven by many studies and be confirmed directly by either asking grandparents about how many used to die in the old days or by checking how easy is to die from various infectious diseases in countries that cannot offer vaccination for the people 4. Possible denial of education - some institutions (especially private ones) do not allow non-vaccinated kids to attend classes. This however is against the right for an education Ex-Health Minister (a technocrat) managed to impose participation at some short course about vaccination awareness to all parents, before being legally allowed to not vaccinate their children, but he was unable to go further. Also, another issue is that, under the protection of expression right (free speech), anyone can virtually express him/herself against vaccination without any scientific proof. However, I see this as an abuse since the European Convention on Human Rights clearly states that: Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to
certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary
in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold
opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows
restrictions for: territorial integrity or public safety protection of health or morals | The chief reason is because patient autonomy is considered a key value in modern medical ethics, and that forcing people to get vaccinated violates this. Patient autonomy states that a patient should be able to make their own decisions relating to health care given to them (and, by extension, make decisions health care providers disagree with). Patient autonomy is not an absolute rule. For example it is generally agreed upon that it's acceptable to violate patient autonomy in cases where the patient is not considered to be sound of mind and unfit to make rational decisions (think mental illnesses). When exactly patient autonomy should be overruled and to which degree is a debate that has been going on for centuries, but it generally doesn't apply to cases where a person is of sound mind and makes a decision which violates the best available scientific evidence (or more crudely put, is being stupid). A second reason is that modern government usually don't take a stance on "truth" unless there's a pressing need to . There are some philosophical reasons for this; how do we know who is right? In other words, what is truth? Can we know what is true? How do we know something is false? These questions are not easy. There are real limits to what we can know, and some things can be considered unknowable . Specifically, I can't prove that vaccines don't cause autism. I can only show there is no credible evidence for that claim discovered thus far, but that's not the same as disproving the claim. This James Randi lecture explains the concept in some more depth. Some might say that this distinction is somewhat philosophical, and that in practice we can prove that vaccines don't cause autism (this is what Randi argues), and this might be true for matters of science , but in this context it's not a scientific question, but rather a question on ethics and how to organize society. The current prevalent attitude is that personal beliefs – no matter how irrational or contrary to evidence – are "sacred", and not something that the government (or society) should directly interfere with. This is why we have free speech, freedom of religion, and all the rest of it. Much of this is just a rephrasing of "freedom to believe in your own reality". And "freedom to believe" is worth very little without the freedom to actually act on those beliefs. Which, in this case, means not vaccinating. Arguments in favour of mandatory vaccinations None of the above is absolute though – very little is – and there are some arguments in favour of mandatory vaccination programs, which I'll briefly outline below. Other people may be disadvantaged by a patient's decision The foundational rule of medical ethics is do no harm (Hippocratic oath). But do no harm to whom, exactly? A single person? Or a population? Vaccines are typically not especially beneficial to a single individual, but are to the entire population due to herd immunity . Some people view vaccinations so beneficial to the population as a whole that it may override autonomy in some cases. There is some historical precedent for this. Opposition to vaccines is not new, and during the 18th and 19th centuries a number of countries made the smallpox vaccine mandatory. For example in 1902 the United States Supreme Court declared that a state has the right to order vaccinations to protect the people from a devastating disease, while also recognizing that individual liberty was important ( Jacobson v. Massachusetts ). Since then a few things have changed though. Medical ethics standards have become more codified, and individualism has significantly gained influence in Western society, so autonomy is typically given much greater weight. In addition, the medical crisis of the 18th, and 19th century were considerably more acute. The measles outbreak you cite is terrible, but on the other hand it has killed "only" two children, whereas the smallpox outbreaks of the 18th and 19th century typically killed hundreds or more, and presumably would have killed many more if there had been no compulsory vaccination. All of this is part of a larger discussion when exactly the general good will override the individual rights . There are no clear answers here, and there probably never will be. It's a personal value judgement, and if you ask 100 people you will likely get 100 subtly different answers. However, we must consider that the effects of not vaccinating children are comparatively mild in "the grand scheme of things". The risk of actually getting ill is very small, and the total number of people who have gotten ill (or even died) is very small as well. Especially if we compare this to other preventable diseases such as smoking or obesity. The affected are typically children Relating to patient autonomy mentioned earlier is informed consent , which is exactly what the name suggests it is: a patient must be informed of the health care action, and she must give consent before the care giver can perform the health care action. Children are usually considered to lack the decision making ability to give informed consent for medical procedures. It's acceptable for a care-giver to give an four-year old an injection even though it's screaming "I don't want to, it's going to hurt!" as the child cannot be informed and cannot give consent , so the child's parents (or legal guardians) have to give informed consent by proxy . It's generally accepted that a third party (usually the government in some form) should intervene if the parent's decision or actions counter the child's best interests in such a way that the child is seriously harmed.
But where do we draw the line? Intervening on every possible thing that might cause harm is impractical and undesirable (it would be a absolute dictatorship) while never intervening would lead to abject abuse (paedophilia, child labour, etc.) This, like the previous section, is a personal value judgement. In general however, it is considered that not vaccinating a child doesn't harm the child enough to overrule this. As mentioned in the previous section, chances are that the unvaccinated will live their lives happily without getting measles or any other vaccine-preventable disease. Besides, what's next? Will parents of obese children get in trouble? That's probably a lot more of a pressing problem than vaccinations. Concluding remarks Opposition to vaccination is not new, but it has seen a large surge in the last twenty years after Andrew Wakefield's (now retracted) 1998 paper published in The Lancet where he fraudulently claimed that vaccines cause autism. Even so, the practical effects have been fairly limited. Yes, there have been outbreaks, and yes, people have died, but the scope of it has been small and most children still get vacinated . So the pressure to actually do something has been fairly limited. This may change in the future, though. As the effects of non-vaccinated people may become greater. And some countries (such as Slovenia) do have mandatory vaccination programs, while some other countries (like many U.S. states) have some limited mandatory vaccination program with various opt-out clauses. Some politicians have also offered their support for stricter mandatory vaccination programs, such as Hillary Clinton and Ben Carson during the Presidential campaign. It's also possible that a new lethal disease will rear its ugly head in the future, like the Black Death did in the middle ages. Should such an epidemic arise, vaccines almost certainly will be made mandatory, but this is not what we're talking about here. Caveats This answer comes with some caveats: There are a lot of subtleties and exception that are not covered. You can write a book in response to your question, so I've had to choose between brevity and, well, writing a book :-) I've generalized a lot, which is why I used the words generally and typically so often. There are a lot of differences and subtleties in attitudes to this topic, but I think – hope – I've captured the essence of it. This applies to Western culture . I have no idea what the prevalent attitudes are in China or India. You mentioned Romania in your question, I also don't know anything about the on-going debate there, but in general, these are the most important considerations in the debate. Links Some interesting links, some of which were used as a source for this answer. Autonomy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy historyofvaccines.org Towards a twenty-first-century Jacobson v. Massachusetts How The 'Pox' Epidemic Changed Vaccination Rules Truth, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14260",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
14,290 | In the George W. Bush era, how did government organizations get away with using torture? Obviously it was illegal. What legislation did they pass, and what did Obama undo? In this article , it talks about how Obama refused to prosecute those who made torture legal. I guess this implies that it's as simple as changing a law to make torture standard practice? ...Obama refused to prosecute those responsible for sanctioning
torture... | The Bush administration asserted that " enhanced interrogation " techniques like waterboarding were not torture and not illegal . The Obama administration asserted that they were torture and were illegal. The law itself did not change, just how the two administrations interpreted it. From MSNBC : In one of his first acts as president, Obama signed an executive order that banned the use of torture by the CIA And three months later, his administration released Justice Department memos that revealed some of the arguments that Bush administration lawyers used to approve them. An executive order is not a law. It's basically an instruction from the president that his employees have to follow. Note that in some cases, an executive order can cause regulations to change. Regulations are more like law. They are basically the details of how the administration is enforcing legislation. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14290",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11303/"
]
} |
14,340 | The Constitution of United States and the amendments contains 7,591 words. Assuming it was typed out in a normal font and size that's about 27 pages (275 words a page). The Constitution creates a government with three branches of government and it divides the power between federal and state governments. Would limiting law length to be less than the Constitution (at the same font and font size) severely affect laws? Why can't the legislative branch come out with shorter laws (and hopefully easier to understand)? Long and complicated laws Obamacare/ Affordable Care Act without the regulations is 906 pages Tax Code (Title 26) is 6,544 | The Purpose of those Laws The Constitution serves a difference purpose than other laws. The Constitution provides a skeletal outline of our government, but it doesn't provide specifics. Other laws can be used to fill in those gaps. For example, the Constitution has only a few lines about elections. Consider that everything said about the House of Representatives elections is: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature This is sufficient for a Constitution, but is not nearly enough information to actually have an election. When exactly do elections happen? How are they organized? Who pays for them? Who is allowed to run? How are ballots managed? What are the rights and responsibilities of someone campaigning? If you tried to actually have an election based only on the Constitution, you would be very confused. Compatibility with Existing Laws All of those words in a law mean something - they aren't just filler. Laws are drafted by lawyers (in states through offices like the Revisors of Statute ). Each bill drafted has to be incorporated into the corpus of existing laws. Specific information may be required to accomplish this. A law which touches on multiple issues will likely have to be incorporated into a number of existing laws. You might think of laws like a building. The Constitution is like a frame. A new room is always more elaborate than the frame and more complicated - you have to coordinate all the electrical, heating, water, sewage, et cet. into the existing building's structure. Laws Provide Instruction Laws also provide instruction to a large number of people. A law has to provide instruction to the executive branch so they know how to implement the law. It must instruct judges how to interpret the law and the penalties appropriate for violating it. If the public are expected to comply with the law, then there will be additional information directing members of the public what (exactly) they need to do to comply. Legislators often want to address all of these possibilities directly to make sure that their intent is carried out. Once a law is passed, it is largely outside of the legislature's hands - they don't have any strict control or compliance mechanisms unless the law says it does . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14340",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11337/"
]
} |
14,411 | So, I noticed during the recent press conference that Donald Trump appears to have a symbol on his podium. It roughly looks like this symbol: In Britain, this is a common road sign, seen on one-way roads. It means 'no entry' on the side of the road drivers are not allowed to enter. What does it mean in the context of the press conference? What is the symbol in politics, and why is Donald Trump prominently displaying it as he addresses the press? | It's his "President-Elect" seal. The building in the center is northern side of the White House , the residence of the US President. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14411",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11372/"
]
} |
14,441 | Even though, Joseph McCarthy's efforts were perfectly in line with Truman's "Loyalty Order" -- Executive Order 9835 -- as well as the public disclosures of the Venona project (in 1995). Why has the mainstream narrative continued to regard McCarthyism as "making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence"? Note: The Venona materials revealed that the communist infiltration of the U.S. government was far greater than even McCarthy had suspected. | Why has the mainstream narrative continued to regard McCarthyism as "making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence"? Because there is no evidence that McCarthy was finding actual communist infiltrators by anything more than accident. Note that many of the people at whom he was looking were not in the government, so Venona's identification of people in the government wouldn't apply to them. Wikipedia has a list of people identified by the Venona project. I don't have a similar list of McCarthy targets against whom to compare, but I did a quick sanity check of Joel Barr , Alice Barrows , and Theodore Bayer . These are the first three confirmed spies on the list, and none of them had anything to do with Senator McCarthy or the House Un-American Activities Committee. As others have noted , McCarthy's activities did more to discredit Communist hunting than to promote it. By basing his investigations on slurs and innuendo, he made it look like more serious organizations like the Subversive Activities Control Board were also engaged in witch hunts. One critic went so far as to accuse McCarthy of voting the Communist Party line in the Senate. McCarthy gave Communist hunting a bad name by the way that he approached it. He was rejected by anti-Communist liberal Democrats like author Rex Stout and eventually by many Republicans. He is best viewed as an example of how not to pursue an investigation or promote a cause. TL;DR McCarthy is regarding as "making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence" because that is what he did. It was other groups that were doing the hard work of finding actual Communists and collecting prosecutable evidence against them. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14441",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11279/"
]
} |
14,454 | As Barack Obama delivered the commutation to Chelsea Manning's 35 year sentence down to 7, would President-elect Donald Trump have the ability to reverse that when he becomes President? | No. The power of a Presidential Pardon comes from the Constitution ( Article II, Section 2 ) and there is no provision for undoing it. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14454",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11264/"
]
} |
14,458 | I honestly don't understand, she leaked hundreds of thousands of US government documents to WikiLeaks when she was a Private in the U.S. military, and she's going to be released on 17 May 2017 after serving seven years in prison. That's seven years for leaking classified government documents that could cause a threat to national security. After all this why did President Obama just let her go? Am I missing something, or is there a bigger picture? | "Just let her go" is not exactly true; she served seven years in prison and wasn't pardoned, rather her 35 year sentence was reduced to 7 years. A subtle
but important difference. At any rate, as near as I can find Obama administration has released no detailed
statements about this, but this is the petition Manning sent ,
which was granted. I feel it's safe to assume that this action was based on the
arguments presented there. This is a – hopefully accurate – summary of the points put forth
in the petition, in the order they first appear in the document: Well-intentioned – Manning has "never made excuses for disclosing classified
materials" and "accepted responsibility". The disclosure was well-intentioned
with the intention of "raising public awareness about issues she found
concerning, including the impact of war on innocent victims", and she "did not
intend to harm the interests of the United States or harm any service
members". Unusual long sentence – The 35 year sentence is "off the charts for an
offense of this nature" and "any other civilized judicial system would have
resulted in at most a few years of prison time". This extraordinary long sentence was due to the "public spectacle" and "great
scrutiny" of the trail, and because the military court was not intended and is
not equipped to deal with these sort of cases due to lack of sentencing
guidelines and historical precedent. There have been only a few similar cases, with sentence of one to three years. Confused young adult – "as a young [transgender] adult, attempting to make
sense of her feelings and place in the world [..] compounded by [..] the
military [..] not [being] a welcome place for transgender". This, it is
argued, led to "a detrimental effect on her mentally[,] and emotionally
leading to the disclosures". Difficult time in prison – Manning has spent a long time battling with the
military over her gender dysphoria, which the military "fierily fought", such
as "[her] request to use her legal name, [..] refer to her with female
pronouns". "This fight has taken a great toll on her". In her personal statement she goes into more detail, ending with "The
bottom-line is this: I need help and I am still not getting it. I am living
through a cycle of anxiety, anger, hopelessness, loss, and depression. I
cannot focus. I cannot sleep. I attempted to take my own life." Solitary confinement – "consider Ms. Manning's prison conditions, including
her significant time spent in solitary confinement, as a reason for reducing
her sentence to time served". She was held in solitary confinement for "nearly a year" while awaiting trail,
and again since her attempted suicide she has been placed in confinement. This
"conflicts with the President's mandate to halt the use of solitary
confinement for any purpose". Second chance – "I have serviced a sufficiently long sentence [..] I am
merely asking for a first change to live my life outside the USDB as the
person I was born to be". Not all charges were valid – Morris Davis argues that some of the
charges were based on the disclosure of Detainee Assessment Briefs (DABs); but
much of this information was already on the internet or other public ally
available resources. In addition these DABs "were unreliable and had little
value". It's not clear which of these arguments had the greater weight in Obama's
reasoning, but there's a good chance that "unusual long sentence" is the most
important one. As any summary, it omits some of the nuances, subtleties, and examples. I
encourage you to read the full statement. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14458",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
14,461 | The German Tagesschau writes * that Snowden was not among those pardoned by Obama, contrary to prior speculations. As far as I am aware, pardoning means to reduce a sentence. However, I thought that Snowden was not convicted of anything at this time. Could he still be pardoned by the POTUS, and what exactly would such a pardon mean? * link is in German | Yes, the constitution allows pardoning people who haven't been charged. Reduction of a sentence is not technically considered pardoning. A President can pardon someone who hasn't be charged. Pardons make an individual immune to any conviction in future. Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President the right to pardon: [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. An example is Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon after Nixon resigned. The pardon absolved the former president of "all offenses against the United States which he … has committed or may have committed or taken part in" between the date of his inauguration in 1969 and his resignation in August 1974. This Slate article further describes why people not charged can be pardoned. Snowden can actually be pardoned, Obama may have meant that he "won't" pardon Snowden rather than "can't" pardon . So, the pardon means that he won't be charged for all offences he may have committed. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14461",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11416/"
]
} |
14,466 | On the eve of Betsy DeVos' hearing for education secretary I was wondering if there is any clear provision in the Constitution against vouchers & school choice? Will they need new legislation to pass these reforms? | Yes, the constitution allows pardoning people who haven't been charged. Reduction of a sentence is not technically considered pardoning. A President can pardon someone who hasn't be charged. Pardons make an individual immune to any conviction in future. Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President the right to pardon: [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. An example is Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon after Nixon resigned. The pardon absolved the former president of "all offenses against the United States which he … has committed or may have committed or taken part in" between the date of his inauguration in 1969 and his resignation in August 1974. This Slate article further describes why people not charged can be pardoned. Snowden can actually be pardoned, Obama may have meant that he "won't" pardon Snowden rather than "can't" pardon . So, the pardon means that he won't be charged for all offences he may have committed. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14466",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11417/"
]
} |
14,480 | Nowadays, nationalism has a strong negative connotation attached to it. This stigma doesn't apply to patriotism. What's the difference between them? If there is a difference to what extent could nationalism be a positive force for good? | George Orwell in 'Notes on Nationalism' said it best I think, By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human
beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of
millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled
‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly — and this is much more important — I
mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other
unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty
than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be
confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a
way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw
a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing
ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular
place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best
in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is
of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism,
on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The
abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more
prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he
has chosen to sink his own individuality. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14480",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11177/"
]
} |
14,494 | Simple question, but it's been bugging me for quite some time. If we know for a fact that Russians interfered with the 2016 US presidential election, why can we proceed with inaugurating Trump, without fully knowing the extent to which the hacks influenced the election results? | Russian Hacks Technically, the US intelligence didn't claim that the Russians hacked the election itself . What they claimed was that the Russians ran a campaign to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process". They didn't hack into the voting machines to change the vote tallies and votes are still cast by Americans. Thus, the results are still true and legally valid. Constitution Terms of President Constitutionally, it is set for the winner of the presidential election to take office on January 20 of the year after the presidential election. It also specifically mentions that the incumbent President's term will end at noon on 20 January. The Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January , and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. (emphasis mine) Electoral College certification So, regardless of what happens, the election is certified after votes by the electoral college are counted . The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of [electoral] votes for President, shall be the President , if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed (emphasis mine) Conclusion Since Presidents-elect can't be impeached before the inauguration, the inauguration will go on regardless of any other factors such as the claims that the election is hacked. There is really no other options available. This is also considered a peaceful transition of power. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14494",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
14,500 | As a European, I am always baffled by the concept that requiring an ID to vote is so controversial in the US, for me is one of the most "natural" things. I hear that it is because obtaining an ID in the US in no simple matter, is it true? What are the historical and political reasons that make the topic so controversial? | There are many reasons that a voter ID requirement is controversial. This is just a list of some arguments or concerns regarding voter ID laws, there is no attempt to determine the reasonableness of any of them. National Identification Elections and identification are two issues that are generally dealt with by states, not the national government. States organize elections. States issue the normal forms of identification in the United States (either a driver's license or another identification). There is a strain of American politics that has a strong fear of the national government. Consider that all Americans do have a national (non-photo) identification in the form of a social security card. This just contains the number we need to access our national social welfare and insurance programs, as well as being a secondary form of ID in many cases. Social security is at the center of many conspiracy theories (for example, this or this ). The idea of a national identification card strikes many of the same fears: an oppressive national government, intrusion into private lives, etc. Many people have reasonable concerns, far from the world of conspiracy theories. Privacy Some people have privacy concerns related to an identification to vote. The idea of an anonymous vote is a part of the American system. A voter ID introduces the idea that voting behavior could be tied to this ID, which would be a significant intrusion into our supposedly-anonymous elections. The Electronics Frontier Foundation published an article summarizing many concerns about elections and privacy. If you wished to know more, I recommend their article. According to their article, some Americans are shocked to discover that you can access voter registration lists as well as information about who voted when. Voter Suppression Some people are worried that voter ID requirements are either intended to prevent people from voting, or will have the effect of preventing people from voting. In the last 100 years, racial and economic biases in elections have been an important issue. Although African Americans were legally able to vote as early as 1870 , in practice many states or cities had rampant discrimination. There were monetary requirements (which poor Black farmers couldn't afford to pay), literacy tests (which largely uneducated Black citizens couldn't pass), as well as physical violence and manipulation to deter Black voters. From these experiences, the idea of deterring a group from voting may invoke powerful feelings in many Americans. One group that opposes voter ID requirements (including the national voter ID) is the American Civil Liberties Union . They are concerned, as are many, that these ID laws will lower voter turnout in general, but will disproportionately affect minorities (who are less likely to have identification). Voter Fraud Some people are concerned about the possibility of vote fraud, where somebody votes who shouldn't be able to. This is often tied to concerns about immigration, since it seems without an ID requirement immigrants (both legal and illegal) could vote in an American election, which they are not entitled to. This view is espoused in many news articles ( example ). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14500",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7476/"
]
} |
14,542 | I'm watching the inauguration of the 45th president and am stunned 2 that three Christian 3 clergy persons pray for the president and the country, obviously in order to give the incoming president the Christian god's blessing. They explicitly ask that god to instill the necessary wisdom in him. While I don't have a problem with wisdom or general spirituality, I am astonished that the Christian god is invoked explicitly, and that the U.S. are explicitly labeled a gift from that Christian god. I have a couple of questions: Is this customary? How does this align with a secular government? Isn't it one? 1 How does this go down with members of other faiths or atheists? How can a Muslim or Jew feel that the U.S. are his or her country after such prayers at the inauguration? 1 I'm aware that there is some ongoing debate about the separation of church and state in the U.S. But the examples I read about concern mere folklorist elements like statues, crosses on buildings, and possibly a school prayer. There is also the customary "so help me god" in the oath, which one could attribute to the Christian tradition which the U.S. have without doubt. But to have such prayers initiate the presidential inauguration is a different quality, I think. 2 This public display of religion appears probably more alien to me as a European than to the average U.S. American. 3 After I had written the original question, more prayers or religious speeches happened, and one of them was by a Rabbi. | Is this customary? Yes, there is a whole wiki on it. Obama had pastor Rick Warren at his inauguration. How does this align with a secular government? Isn't it one? The government is still secular. What makes the government secular is that a religious component is not a mandated component. You can become president without prayers. More importantly no other part of the US government is tied to religious requirements. That is what makes a government secular How does this go down with members of other faiths or atheists? How
can a Muslim or Jew feel that the U.S. are his or her country after
such prayers at the inauguration? There are some that agree with your sentiment, but they are generally a minority. The general view of these prayers is either (1) Meh or (2) that's nice, but it doesn't mean the country is exclusively Christian. Again, remember that the personal religious preferences of the president do not mean that the government is religious; this ties back to separation of Church and State | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14542",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7226/"
]
} |
14,582 | In America, most elections are based on first-past-the-post voting, where whoever gets a plurality of the votes wins. For instance if candidate A gets 40% of the vote and each of candidates B and C get 30% of the vote, then candidate A wins, even if 60% of the electorate are steadfastly opposed to candidate A. This problem can be solved by a system called ranked-choice voting, aka instant-runoff voting, where voters rank candidates from best to worst. Suppose there are six candidates. Then each voter ranks the candidates from 1 to 6. Then the voters's first-choice votes are all tallied up, and whichever candidate gets in 6th place is eliminated, and his voters are reallocated to whoever was their second choice. Once this reallocation is done, the 5th place candidate is eliminated, and this process is repeated until only one candidate is left. (And there are some rules on handling ties, just as there are in the first-past-the-post system.) For more information see here . Ranked-choice voting has many advantages. It eliminates the concern that third party candidates act as spoilers. And if the Republican primaries had used ranked-choice voting, Trump wouldn't have won the nomination, since a majority of the electorate was against him, it's just that the anti-Trump vote was split. But my question is, what arguments have been made against ranked-choice voting. It seems like an obviously superior system to me. The only downsides I can think of is that it may be too hard to understand for some voters, and there may be implementation costs. But it's been implemented in San Francisco and several other jurisdictions, and it doesn't seem to have caused any catastrophic problems. EDIT: My question is not about the difficulties of switching to ranked-choice voting, but about what disadvantages (if any) there are of the system itself. | This problem can be solved by a system called ranked-choice voting, aka instant-runoff voting First off, there are multiple voting systems based on ranking your choices . The system you're describing is just one example, and it's a pretty bad one, so it's frustrating that people refer to it as "ranked-choice voting", as if it's the only ranked system. This system is more specifically referred to as " Instant-Runoff Voting ". (Though taken literally, there are other systems that use instant runoff rounds, but "IRV" always means this particular system.) Second, it has a number of problems: IRV has a spoiler effect You said: It eliminates the concern that third party candidates act as spoilers. It doesn't, though. It actually leads to two-party domination in every country it's adopted in . It's true that voting honestly for a fringe candidate (Yellow) is safe, since they'll be eliminated immediately and your second choice will go to a mainstream candidate (Green). So IRV is better than plurality in this case (where Red would win even though a majority opposes Red): However, when the third party candidate becomes more competitive (which is the whole point of adopting an alternative voting system), voting honestly for them takes away votes from your second choice, who will get eliminated first, and then your most-disliked candidate will win in the following round. If the third party hadn't run, your more-preferred candidate would have won, so the third party is acting as a spoiler, and in fact the effect is worse than in plurality (red bar extends further to the right): (These images are from Voteline (which is Flash, unfortunately)) Video illustration of this effect: Favorite Betrayal in Plurality and Instant Runoff Voting Primer also has a great video showing this effect: Simulating alternate voting systems These effects have been modeled graphically on 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional political spaces , and produce bizarre win regions where the population moving toward a candidate causes them to lose, and vice versa. In this example, if the population's opinions shifted to the right, reducing support for Red and increasing support for Yellow, it would cause Red to win instead of Green!: In 2 dimensions, we can see IRV giving the election to Green even when the population is centered exactly on the Yellow candidate. There's also a bizarre Yellow island that's nowhere near the Yellow candidate, and not present in any of the other voting systems pictured. Approval voting or Condorcet ranking both have results that make sense, with the candidate nearest to the population center winning: Animated 2D comparison of different systems: Yee Animations 0.8 IRV excludes moderates Similar to above, if there are two more-extreme partisan candidates and a moderate/compromise candidate in the middle, the compromise candidate is eliminated early (for not being anyone's first choice), even though they are the best representative of the population as a whole, and a more partisan candidate is elected instead. This is called the " center-squeeze effect ". This is essentially what happened in Burlington Vermont's 2009 election , which led to IRV being repealed . Montroll was in the center relative to the other major candidates, but was eliminated in the 4th round, and a more extreme candidate won , even though Montroll had a higher approval rating than the winner. Here are the ideal win regions for 14 candidates, with each winning if the population center is nearest to them: Here's what happens in IRV . All the candidates near the center are eliminated, and only the more extreme fringe candidates can win: These two effects lead to political polarization and two-party domination. You can see how IRV skews Australia's House in favor of the two main parties even though 1/4 to 1/3 of the population would prefer third parties (while STV leads to a more proportional Senate): IRV is not a Condorcet system In the Burlington election , Montroll was also the Condorcet winner , meaning he would have won against every other candidate in head-to-head elections. The overall preferences of the population were unambiguous: Montroll > Kiss > Wright > Smith > Simpson But IRV is not a Condorcet system; it eliminated Montroll and elected the population's second favorite Kiss instead. Likewise, in the 2022 Alaska congressional special election , 54% of voters preferred Begich over Peltola, and 61% of voters preferred Begich over Palin , with an unambiguous Condorcet order of Begich > Peltola > Palin Yet because Hare RCV only counts first-choice votes in each round, and Palin and Begich split the Republican vote between them, Begich was eliminated before the others. If Palin had strategically dropped out before the general election, Begich (also Republican) would have won the election, but she acted as a spoiler, causing the Democrat Peltola to win. If your system doesn't elect the most- liked candidate (the "Utilitarian Winner"), it should at least elect the most- preferred candidate (the "Condorcet Winner"). IRV guarantees neither. Some argue that although it doesn't guarantee a Condorcet winner, it is still likely to elect one . This may be true in a two-party system with only one or two strong candidates, but in an election with multiple similar candidates, simulations show it to not perform particularly well : (Performance is similar when measuring the likelihood of electing the "most-liked" candidate .) IRV enables tyranny of the majority Here's a (contrived) example: Candidate A is loved by 55% of the population, and hated by 45% of the population (55% overall approval rating) Candidate B is liked by everyone (85% overall approval rating) Under IRV, the polarizing Candidate A would win, because they are preferred by a majority, even though the population as a whole would be much happier with Candidate B winning the election. "Utilitarian" or "consensus" voting systems like Score/Approval choose the candidate with the higher approval rating, which is considered a better outcome by advocates of these systems . Another way of viewing this is that Candidate A is a great representative of half of the population, while Candidate B is a good representative of the entire population. Majoritarian voting systems are not as inclusive, leading to adversarial politics, inefficiency, and even civil wars . 2016 election And if the Republican primaries had used ranked-choice voting, Trump wouldn't have won the nomination, since a majority of the electorate was against him, it's just that the anti-Trump vote was split. There's not much good data about this, but it's likely that IRV would still have elected Trump: "probably really Trump would have been the IRV victor." "it's apparent that under ranked voting, Trump would have won with a majority of the votes" Score or Condorcet voting would likely have elected Sanders or Kasich, as they had the highest approval ratings: "Sanders turned out to be the most honestly preferred candidate." .. "We might look at Sanders’ win here as being a “true” Condorcet winner." "Score Voting (all primary contenders, all parties): Either Sanders or Kasich would have won." "Notice that even though Democrats voted for Clinton, it was Sanders who really was liked by the most Americans. If we didn’t have separate primaries, Sanders could have won." "America really chose Sanders and Kasich." | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14582",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/1953/"
]
} |
14,636 | I did a quick Google search of the US Constitution's 20th amendment, and it seems to me like section 1 doesn't specify a timezone. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. What timezone does the section follow? This answer had me curious. | The United States Constitution does not explicitly state the time zone used. However, in reality, the Eastern Time Zone which the District of Columbia is in, is followed . It's likely because it's the local time of the District of Columbia where the inauguration takes place and that D.C. is the capital of the United States. It doesn't make sense to use a time zone not used by the capital. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14636",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11588/"
]
} |
14,660 | According to the sources cited within this paragraph , there is a scientific consensus that "currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction." However, United States and European Union seem to have very different policies regarding GM food: USA - according to this source , The United States does not have any federal legislation that is
specific to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rather, GMOs are
regulated pursuant to health, safety, and environmental legislation
governing conventional products. and GMOs are not restricted categorically from the US food supply. As
discussed above, the FDA treats foods derived from GMOs like those
derived from conventionally bred plants, and therefore most foods
derived from GM plants are classified as presumptively “generally
recognized as safe. European Union - according to this paragraph (Approach) uses the precautionary principle demanding a pre-market authorisation
for any GMO to enter the market and a post-market environmental
monitoring. As a result, GMO crops are banned or very small in most EU countries. Also, there is no EU country within the top 10 of countries of genetically modified (GM) crops, as indicated here . Question: Why is policy regarding GM food so different between USA and EU? | TLDR: because Europe prefer to be cautious, and it's worked nicely thus far. why is policy regarding GM food so different between USA and EU? Because history tells a story. Europe is stricter in what they want to be consumed and produced. The development of GMO foods in Europe played out at the same time as
the initial steps toward integration of national food safety systems
into the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) were taking place. It
was politically contentious because national constituencies were
losing some of their influence over home-based regulation. ( How we got to now: why the US and Europe went different ways on GMOs ) Kym Anderson and Lee Ann Jackson over at AgBioForum wrote a great piece from the perspective of ratifying the difference between both sides with the results they produce: Results indicate that changes in real income of producers can help
explain differing GM policies in these two regions. Specifically the introduction explains: Over the past decade, the United States (US) and the European Union
(EU) have implemented widely divergent regulatory systems to govern
the production and consumption of genetically modified (GM)
agricultural crops. In the United States, many products have been
tested and commercially produced and marketed, while in the EU, few
products have been approved and a de facto moratorium has limited the
production, import, and domestic sale of most GM crops. These
divergent approaches have led to conflict over the implications for
international trade in genetically modified products, to the point
where in September 2003 the United States, Canada, and Argentina
succeeded in establishing a World Trade Organization dispute panel to
begin to test the legality of European policy towards imports of GM
foods. This article indicates that farm interest groups hold a larger say on policy in both regions, they also indicate it's down to how long the process of accepting GM related foods in each region takes: In the United States, three different agencies are responsible for
various aspects of GM crops. The Food and Drug Administration makes
market approval decisions, the Environmental Protection Agency
monitors the use of crops that produce their own pesticides or
herbicides, and the US Department of Agriculture regulates the
introduction of new crops into the environment during field testing. whereas, In the EU, prior to the initiation of the production moratorium, the
approval process entailed a long iterative process among EU and
state-level regulatory agencies, with the final step being evaluation
by the EU Council of Ministers. If the product was not deemed safe at
this stage, it could be neither produced in nor imported into the EU. But it just doesn't boil down to simply how they process the same products differently. History will tell you another story in why opinions differ: A slightly more complete history would point to a number of other
incidents that have led to the sharp division of opinion that exists
today. The Flavr Savr tomato in 1994 was the first genetically
modified crop to be commercialized. Designed to stay ripe and firm
longer, the product failed to meet the needs of the US tomato
industry. But there is also ice-nucleating or “Frostban” bacteria; StarLink corn; the Pusztzai incident; African rejection of US food aid – the list continues. The Bottom Line During GMOs early days in Europe, a series of food safety debacles
undercut Europeans’ confidence in the food and agricultural industry.
Mad cow disease and the radioactive contamination of European fields
after Chernobyl led Europeans to be leery of bad scientific decisions
made elsewhere ( How we got to now: why the US and Europe went different ways on GMOs ). Further Reading : The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics Differing U.S. and European Perspectives on GMOs: Political, Economic and Cultural Issues The U.S. and EU: Different Approaches | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14660",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
14,672 | I had just learned of this from Bradley's question here . What reasons would that administration have for suddenly giving such a large amount of money to a country in direct conflict with one of its only allies in the Middle-East? The transfer occurring before President Trump's inauguration gives it some fairly belligerent optics. This also seems to directly contradict his last year in office, of being extremely diplomatic and improving both the country's, and the world's optics of himself. The event seems quite counter-intuitive to everything he's done the past year, which makes me wonder why he bothered to push it through on his final days. Short article on the matter | Basically, it's related to the US abstinent on UN Vote on Israeli Settlements (United Nations Security Council 2334). As quoted, then Secretary of State John Kerry said on the reason for abstaining: “The status quo is leading toward one state and perpetual occupation,” Kerry warned. “The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state solution, but his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme element.” This article by Vox explains the more sensible reason why the US abstained: But beyond the White House’s formal statements on the matter, the move was widely seen as Obama’s parting shot at Netanyahu , with whom the president repeatedly clashed throughout his tenure. As my colleague Zeeshan Aleem writes, although the Obama administration gave Israel a bigger military aid package than any US president in history, and has vetoed past UN condemnations of settlements, Obama had a “tense and at times outright hostile relationship with the right-wing Netanyahu.” Among other things, they clashed over Israeli settlement expansion and the terms of the controversial Iran nuclear deal . (emphasis mine) So, in conclusion, it's likely a follow-up action to the abstinent of the vote . Since there's no official reason given, these sources on why the US abstained are the best reasons I could find. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14672",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9972/"
]
} |
14,697 | Seems this has become the new issue of the new administration. Even Sean Spicer spent time during media briefing to talk about it and even went so far as to say “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration,
period" This is the picture in question: were the two photos taken when Obama and Trump were giving their speeches? | The pictures by themselves are not much of an issue; there are obviously fewer people in one than in other but there is not much more that can be concluded about it 1 . The issue is that in his habitual style, Trump and his aides could not stand any information that did not suit them, and engaged in claims that his inauguration had more attendance than Obama's (including attacks on the press that reported otherwise). Even when other data (number of metro rides that day) debunked that claim, they pressed their own claim, to the point of talking about alternative facts . 2 Now, the issue of how many people there were is minor in itself, but the way Trump administration has reacted is worrisome: deny the data they do not want, make a major issue of a point without importance, attack anyone who produces information they do not like, and invent "alternative facts" 3 . It is not the only incident of this type Trump has protagonized 4 , so it has lead to doubts about his personality. If this is how he reacts to bad data about the public attendance to his inauguration... what should the public expect from him if economic, intelligence, etc. data does not paint the picture that Trumps wants to see? This is the whole point of the debate. 1 For example, maybe more people prefered to get out for a weekend trip than to attend Trump's inauguration on a Friday, or it was colder, or whatever.
If you want more details about how many people were at each inauguration, this question in skeptics addresses the issue . 2 BTW, the video covers the whole issue pretty well -although with an humorous spin-, it is worth seeing it full. 3 Alternative facts would be OK if Trump were POTUS in an alternative reality, since he is not it is desirable that he learns to use actual facts. 4 Up to claiming fraud in the elections that nobody disputes he won, which is AFAIK a first in Western history. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14697",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9016/"
]
} |
14,857 | In Europe I lived in different countries and I was always able to vote (national and local elections in my home country, and local elections elsewhere) without having to do anything beforehand: the day of the election I present myself to the polling place, I show my ID and whatever document I might have received by snail-mail in the previous days, the personnel at the polling place checks that I am in the voting list for that place, and I am able to proceed. The only exception is when I vote in a different place from where I generally live, and in these occasions I have to warn the town hall/government a few days in advance. What makes this inapplicable in the US? What is the registration needed for? | In European countries it is usually mandatory to register your place of residence with the local municipality . Births and deaths also need to be reported. That means that the local municipalities have a complete list of their residents with enough information about them to know who is eligible for voting. So they can just send every person with suffrage their voting papers prior to the election. Not so in the United States. There is no duty to register your place of residence. That means if you want to be eligible for voting, you need to register voluntarily. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14857",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7476/"
]
} |
14,975 | This question was inspired by Donald Trump's claims about Hillary's supposed illegitimate votes, but is not about those claims. Suppose I had cast my vote last year in an early ballot. Between then and the election, I died. Would my vote still be counted? If the answer is "it depends", then on what? Make no assumptions about what state I'm in. | It depends on the state you are registered to vote. There's an article I came across about this, you can read the whole article since it includes examples too. The answer depends mostly on where the voter is registered , because American election laws and procedures are for the most part determined by the individual states, even in elections for federal office. In New York, for example, an absentee ballot can be challenged on the grounds that the voter died before Election Day (in-person early voting is not available in New York). Minnesota, which has both early voting and absentee voting, allows for a challenge in both cases if proof is presented to an election judge that a voter died before 7 AM on Election Day. But most states do count the votes of the recently deceased , according to the bi-partisan National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), an NGO that tracks US state election laws. In the case of Florida, state law spells it out clearly: "The ballot of an elector who casts an absentee ballot shall be counted even if the elector dies on or before Election Day." (emphasis mine) Basically for those states that counts it, it's because your vote is cast the moment you cast your vote. So, regardless of what happens, the vote is still cast and decided by you . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14975",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6599/"
]
} |
14,991 | I keep seeing Trump's latest bit of executive action regarded as a 'Muslim Ban'. It doesn't make sense to me, since all of the information I can find shows that he is imposing a 90-day ban on travel for all citizens of those countries, not just the Muslim ones. If non-Muslims are also banned, why is this being called a Muslim ban? I want to clarify (because in today's hyper-aggressive political environment we need to anymore), I am not looking to argue, I am looking for information. I feel like either I am missing something or the facts of the matter have been spun. | No, all non-citizens and non-green card holders from these countries will not be allowed into the US. The text of the Executive Action : I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants , of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). (emphasis mine) It's not accurate to describe it as a Muslim ban. The story was inspired by Trump's statements during his campaign. This article published by The Hill states: They point to Trump’s Dec. 2015 call for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration to the U.S. He later softened his stance, saying he wanted to target individuals from terror-prone nations. (emphasis mine) | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14991",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6686/"
]
} |
15,060 | The UK government official parliamentary petition website allows citizens to submit and sign petitions. Which petitions have ever succeeded? By succeeded, I mean been debated and then actually acted upon in favour of the wording of the petition. | None There is an article that touches lightly on the topic here . Using the content analysing tool BuzzSumo, I discovered the top ten
most-shared campaigns from petition.parliament.uk within the last
year. It seems logical that the most-shared petitions are those with
the largest chance of success, and all reached the threshold to be
debated by MPs (though four of the ten were actually denied a debate).
Despite accumulating millions of signatures and hundreds of thousands
of shares, however, not a single one of these campaigns suceeded in
obtaining its intended outcome. Beyond that you can see a full list of UK parliament petitions here . Any one that has over 100,000 signatures will likely be debated (some don't end up being debated, and some haven't been debated yet). If you click on a petition over 100k you should see a government response at the bottom that will directly address the yes/no outcome. I looked through all the ones over 100k (there aren't that many) and they all came up as either 'no', 'we're already doing this', or some sort of non-answer. Effectively, this means that no petition has managed to change parliament's mind. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15060",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11888/"
]
} |
15,198 | In the USA, acting attorney general Sally Yates was fired, apparently because she considered that an executive order by the President was unlawful and instructed staff not to defend the order in court. Are there any offices in the USA that where there is a requirement (such as by law, by oath of office, by employment contract) such that loyalty to the President has precedence over loyalty to the law? In other words; are there any positions in which a person has to follow what the President instructs, even if he or she believes this order to be against the law? What if the President orders something illegal? Could anyone be shielded from legal liability if they can prove that they were carrying out direct (illegal) orders from the President, or would they be legally required to refuse to implement illegal orders? | The constitution of the united states is the ultimate law of the land, not the presidency. Therefore there is no such office that is shielded from the law due to loyalty to the presidency. This is pretty similar to the Nuremberg trials , where a common defense was ' I was just following orders '. That didn't fly then and it wouldn't fly now. In fact, a theoretical situation similar to this came up during Trump's candidacy when he claimed his military officers would torture people if he ordered them to . By law the soldiers would have to refuse the order, and many military people came out as saying so. So while many federal employees serve at the pleasure of the president and swear an oath to office (not the person) of the presidency, none are shielded from the law for their actions. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15198",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/130/"
]
} |
15,211 | So, I'm not a fan of President Trump, but I feel like it's a not a big deal when Trump didn't explicitly mention the Jews in his holocaust memorial . Per his statement, he didn't make light of it or try and lessen its impact. It was just a canned holocaust memorial speech in which he mentioned the victims and survivors. Why is it being made into such a big deal? "It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust [Emphasis Mine] . It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror. Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest. As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent. In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world." [1] | Antisemitism was central to the Holocaust, the reason for which was the desire to exterminate all Jews. To not acknowledge that fact when remembering the Holocaust is at least careless and it sends out a certain message, even if that message was not intended. It generalizes the Holocaust to a generic evil, and strips all context from it. The message was also promptly picked up by the far-right. Richard Spencer for example welcomed the "de-Judaification" of the Holocaust, and the Daily Stormer called it "pushing back against Jewish supremacy". Vox puts this in a larger context: Trump’s most fervent supporters included outspoken anti-Semites, online trolls on the “alt-right” who delighted at tormenting Jewish journalists and public figures. His campaign flirted with anti-Semitic tropes, including tweeting an image of a star of David with Hillary Clinton’s face superimposed on a pile of money. His closing ad warned of a shadowy cabal of bankers and international elites. His son casually used the phrase “warming up the gas chambers” to refer to vociferous criticism. In each case, Trump and his inner circle refused to back down or apologize, and his anti-Semitic fans interpreted those controversies as coded signals in their favor. Now that he’s president, the same dynamic is playing out around his statement on the Holocaust. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15211",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7004/"
]
} |
15,249 | The violence that preempted the talk of a prominent alt-right speaker on University of California Berkeley's campus has set off a debate over the role of free speech in American society. Did the protestors, by effectively making the area surrounding the planned talk so unsafe that it had to be cancelled, infringe on the speaker's first amendment rights? Or did they simply take a militant stance against perceived hate speech? Can it be both? It seems like a very complex issue and I'm not sure how to look at it yet. | Constitutional vs. human rights Did the protestors, by effectively making the area surrounding the planned talk so unsafe that it had to be cancelled, infringe on the speaker's first amendment rights Individuals cannot infringe on a speaker's first amendment rights in the United States. The first amendment is a restriction on federal power that was extended to state and local governments by the fourteenth amendment. By contrast, free speech is a natural human right, which can be blocked by other human action. Perhaps that is only a technical distinction, but it is also a legal distinction in the United States. Infringing the first amendment The first amendment claim is that local police were infringing on the speaker's first amendment rights by choosing not to control the violence of the protests. The question there is if they would have been equally hands off with a more liberal speaker being shouted down by conservative protesters or rioters. Of course, most protesters found on a college campus are going to be liberals, not conservatives. So it's hard to know. Another legal issue is if official Democratic groups were involved either deliberately or accidentally in encouraging the protests. If so, the college could sue them for reimbursement of the damages. However, it seems unlikely that the college would pursue that normally. But the Trump administration may insist, as otherwise the college is wasting some of the money that the federal government pays it on repairing riot damage. Note that while the college could sue, it's unclear that there would be sufficient proof of intent such that the college would win. Streisand effect Note that there were a mixture of types of protesters in Berkeley. Some just wanted to use their own free speech rights and try to shout down Milo Yiannopoulos outside. Some seemed to want to disrupt the actual speech inside the hall or whatever. But then there were those that engaged in actual violence and vandalism. Even if you sympathize with the protesters, you might consider the Streisand effect . Yiannopoulos has regular speaking engagements. But how many do you know? It's just Berkeley for me. If I had even seen a reference to a non-violent protest, I would have already forgotten it. But we'll be talking for days about this. And Yiannopoulos will be all over the news, giving him a much larger microphone than he had prior to this. There are reasons why people like Mahatma Gandhi are famous for non-violent protests. Even those who disagree with them, can't disagree with their methods. By contrast, here, even people who agree that Yiannopoulos is an idiot can disagree with rioting. Yiannopoulos can now play the victim, where many view him more as a perpetrator. Violent protest is stupid. It causes more reaction against than for. It is emotionally satisfying in the short term but damages the cause in the long term. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15249",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12012/"
]
} |
15,305 | Is there any provision within the US Constitution whereby the President can declare a state of emergency, suspending the powers of the judiciary/congress to override executive actions. What happened during WW2 that permitted the detention of people of Japanese descent etc? In Britain the Defence of the Realm Act gave vast powers to the Government during war years, such that the Minister of Labour and National Service virtually had enough power to command any adult person to work anywhere. | The USA is in a state of emergency, and has been since the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. The state of emergency was declared by former President G. W. Bush: Proclamation 7463—Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the
World Trade Center, New York, New York, and the Pentagon, and the
continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United
States. Now, Therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of
America, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby declare that
the national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001, and,
pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), I
intend to utilize the following statutes: sections 123, 123a, 527,
2201(c), 12006, and 12302 of title 10, United States Code, and
sections 331, 359, and 367 of title 14, United States Code. [...] Since then it has been extended every year, the last time by President Obama. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15305",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6837/"
]
} |
15,387 | Many have expressed distress at the confirmation of many of President Donald Trump's cabinet picks because of their disdain of the Agencies they have been charged with running. The best example is Scott Pruitt, Trump's pick to head the EPA and an open critic of its usefulness. More recently, Betsy DeVos was chosen to be the Secretary of Education despite concerns that she does not support the public school system or have much experience with it. Some are calling her support for charter schools, a growing alternative to public education, as a conflict of interest much like Pruitt's. Does the Secretary of Education have to support public education as part of their job or is their job simply to push for better education standards in the nation using whatever methods they think best? | The Department of Education was created by the Department of Education Organization Act (1979) . The description of the Secretary's role is: The Department shall be administered, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, under the supervision and direction of a Secretary of Education. The Secretary's job is to run the Department of Education. They are not bound by any particular policy choice, except ones that would violate the law. Furthermore, the goals of the Department do not include supporting public education. Their goals are (via the originating statute): (1) to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to
equal educational opportunity for every individual; (2) to supplement and complement the efforts of States, the
local school systems and other instrumentalities of the
States, the private sector, public and private educational
institutions, public and private nonprofit educational research
institutions, community-based organizations, parents, and
students to im- prove the quality of education; (3) to encourage the increased involvement of the public,
parents, and students in Federal education programs; (4) to promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of
education through federally supported research, evaluation, and
sharing of information; (5) to improve the coordination of Federal education programs; (6) to improve the management and efficiency of Federal
education activities, especially with respect to the process, procedures,
and administrative structures for the dispersal of
Federal funds, as well as the reduction of unnecessary and
duplicative burdens and constraints, including unnecessary
paperwork, on the recipients of Federal funds; and (7) to increase the accountability of Federal education programs
to the President, the Congress, and the public. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15387",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12012/"
]
} |
15,407 | Does the vice-president serve at the discretion of the president, such that he or she can be removed from office at the president's will? | No. The President can not fire the Vice President. Unlike the cabinet (e.g., Secretary of State, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, etc.), and the White House Staff (e.g., Chief-of-Staff, Press Secretary, etc.) the office of the Vice President, his term and the requirements for his removal from office are all established explicitly in Article II of the Constitution. Office, Term—United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1 The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term , be elected, as follows [emphasis added] Removal—United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4 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. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15407",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12132/"
]
} |
15,419 | The definition that I found for populism is "support for the concerns of ordinary people". Democracy is form of government where the people rule by majority. If Democracy is considered to be "good", here in the western world, why would populism be considered to be "bad"? I'm asking this question because it seems to me that any time I've heard or read the term "populism" lately, it almost always comes with a negative connotation. I think people tend to associate it with extremist movements on the far-right or far-left, even though the definition of the term does not imply any kind of ideological alignment. | Populism suggests emotion over reason to many. The negative connotation of the term populism respects the dichotomy of emotion vs. reason as it relates to public policy and its effect on political decision-making — particularly voting . Emotion is seen by many as a less-reliable basis for creating public policy (and decision-making in general) than reason because emotion often overweights fears and biases and underweights facts and logic. Therefore, candidates described as populists are often also (more pejoratively) called demagogues . And, accordingly, can be perceived as playing upon the emotional fears and biases of their constituents for their own political benefit at the expense of the very constituency who might elect them. demagogue (or demagog): a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument. [ Source ] This dichotomy between emotion and reason was acknowledged at least as far back as the founding of the United States and the framing of the Constitution. It is, for example, why the structure of the bicameral legislature (Congress) was designed the way it was. The House of Representatives was supposed to be closer to the people and, therefore, more emotional. Hence, fewer constituents on average and a shorter term (two years) vs. six years in the Senate which was supposed to be calmer and more rational. Fig. 1. Cup-and-Saucer Political Metaphor for Congress. For more details, see below Fig. 2. The above figure is a widely used metaphor for Congress. The House is depicted as the cup of hot liquid (emotional) and the Senate as the saucer (supplying a tempered, reasoned, cooling effect). The web site of the U.S. Senate describes the following dialog between Washington and Jefferson: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm George Washington is said to have told [Thomas] Jefferson, "the framers had created the Senate to 'cool' House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea." [ Source ] Fig. 2. Details of Cup-and-Saucer Political Metaphor for Congress. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15419",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12103/"
]
} |
15,422 | The countries that are in my inquiry list are: SN Country Population GDP DefExp 0 Russia 143,439,832 1,267,750 66.4 bn 1 Germany 80,682,351 3,494,900 39.4 bn 2 UK 65,111,143 2,649,890 55.5 bn 3 France 64,668,129 2,488,280 50.9 bn 4 Turkey 79,622,062 755,716 22.6 bn My questions are: Given that France, Germany and the UK have larger economies than Russia does, why do they spend less on defense than Russia does, yet always seem to be scared of Russia? Why does Russia maintain so massive a military when these countries can't? How can Russia spend so much on defense? Given that these countries spend so much on defense, why do they seek US help/alliance to counter Russia? Why is NATO still so important to them even though they spend so much on defense? Aside from the USA, these four countries' combined spending far exceeds Russia's, and Russia still can bargain with them in Syria. | This is a great question about both politics and history. It relates directly to the changing nature of what a "country" is. First, let me directly answer your questions: Given that France, Germany and the UK have larger economies than that of Russia, why do they spend less in defense than that of Russia and always seem to be scared of Russia? There are two easy answers for this, namely a) Because the US military is present in the region, so the people feel secure from Russian attack and b) because the voters in these countries vote for social services like health care instead of military spending. Why does Russia maintain so massive military when these countries can't? Germany, UK, France, and other western European countries are more than capable of spending a ton of money on military. They choose not to because they are working as a team within the Nato alliance - and they do this for a couple of reasons that will be elaborated below. Why can Russia spend so much on defense? Because Russia can do as it pleases within its means! As for why it does, the reason is the same as for other countries: they spend the amount they can afford for its constituent population to feel "secure". Russia is a huge country with strong neighbors. In the past 100 years, they have fought wars along most of these borders . While the western European invasion during WWII was significant, it is notable that there was a small hot war with China in the '60s and '70s, and war with Afghanistan. They still have territorial disputes with Japan - and they are slowly being intimidated by an expanding Nato that is vocally hostile to the Russian state and hence the Russian population. Given that these countries spend so much on defense, Why do these countries seek US help/alliance to counter Russia? This is the most critical question you ask, I will answer with a counter question: do these countries have a choice? At the end of WWII, Europe was largely occupied in the west by the US military, and in the east by the Soviet military. One could say that all the countries in the East became client states of the Soviet Union, and that those in the West became client states of the USA. Both the Soviet Union and especially the USA, maintained large military bases in these states. The US still has numerous bases. Could we call the US an occupying power? What would it take for Germany to end the presence of the US military on its soil? However, most Americans and Western Europeans bristle at the idea that they are involuntarily "occupied" by Americans, they are instead "Allies"! And it is good, of course to be best friends with the rich American business interests. Trade and mutual economic benefits keep Germany, France, and the UK, most of Europe, in this alliance. Indeed, besides a handful of nations like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and Bolivia, everyone tries to stay on the good side of the Americans. Both for commercial reasons, and because the US, frankly, has a dominant military presence just about everywhere. Perhaps a commenter can correct me, but I think for some reason the US has ~5000 military bases overseas. Why is NATO still so important to them even though they spend so much on defense? Aside the USA, these four countries' combined spending far exceeds Russia and Russia still can bargain with them in Syria. NATO is important because it indicates what relationship these countries have with Washington. Russia is in Syria for a variety of reasons; it has more interest in the area than Syria's former colonial masters, the UK and France. An important point to note is that the concept of a country is fairly new; I have read, and agree, that modern states did not become such an important unit of human organization until the Great Depression in the 1930s; at that time the problems facing them - broken economies and socialist movements - the country level government was the only organization existing that could solve these problems while the existing power structure stayed in power. Since then, states are portrayed as "immortal" and "ever lasting". But in truth, they are not. Competing levels of organization - family, village, community, province, supranational, class, or something else - can eventually take primacy in terms of absolute power. What will happen is a matter of conjecture, but the point is clear: countries are not the only level of organization. For example, what is the EU? Are Germany and France and UK independent countries, as the UN says, or are they members of a single supranational organization? Both really, for example, the UK will have to negotiate its secession or pay a heavy price. While everyone can agree that in name these countries are independent, they do heavily coordinate most of their economical and political activity. This includes military activity. Summary: The level of military coordination between western European countries and the US means that spending on military need only match Russian military spending on a collective basis. I think with data about US spending and presence in and around Europe, the collective manpower and economic investment will be far greater than that of Russia. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15422",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
15,442 | No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. (Constitution Article I, §6, para 2) My interpretation of this is that a senator, once elected for a six-year term, cannot be appointed to an Executive Branch office during that period, if the office was created or its salary increased since the Senator took office. The obvious rationale for this would be to prevent congressmen creating lavish appointments for themselves and then transferring into them. The Attorney General is a Level I position; the salary for which (along with those of what looks like most/all of the Executive Branch) was increased to $205,000 in January 2016. A similar increase also took place in January 2015; I presume it's an annual occurrence. Sessions began his Senate term in January 2014, and it extends until 2020. Why is he, as a sitting senator, allowed to take up the AG office prior to 2020? | Your reading is more or less correct. However, you didn't know that the Senate and House will simply pass the "the Saxbe" fix . In the past, Congress has gotten around this by passing a resolution cutting the salary for the office at stake back to what it was before the nominee’s most recent election. This became known as the “Saxbe fix,” after it was used to facilitate President Richard M. Nixon’s appointment of Senator William Saxbe of Ohio as attorney general. It happened most recently 16 years ago when incoming President Bill Clinton made Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas his treasury secretary. When the Saxbe fix was used for Hillary Clinton , who had the same problem, there was some debate over whether it would be valid, due to the timing of when the raise by the Executive Branch took effect compared to exactly when Clinton resigned from the Senate and when her term of service began at the State Dept. The Constitutionality has nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton's personal actions and these particulars would hold for others too if the timing was similar. To sum up, Congress may be applying a workaround that's sort of bogus, but the precedent has been set and they are sticking to it rather than passing legislation that would clarify alternative interpretations of the emoluments clause. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15442",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12152/"
]
} |
15,619 | John Oliver said in his last Sunday show (12th February) that he paid several TV channels to broadcast an advertisement obviously making fun of Mr Trump (around 21:40, toward the end of the video). The message is to be sent as a commercial advertisement. One of the channels concerned was Fox News, which he picked so that Mr Trump was likely to see it. However, I am not sure that this kind of message would be approved by the staff of Fox News. Has this kind of thing been done before? On what legal basis (if any) could Fox News refuse to broadcast the advertisement? I would be interested in an example of a similar action, using commercial advertising to send a political message on a channel known to be opposed to this particular message. I cannot think of one. There is mandatory equal time granted for each candidate in some countries during the presidential campaign, but it isn't really the same thing. Edit : Can someone show if the ad was actually aired, and if so on which channel? | Some ads are protected but John Oliver's isn't In the US there is a federal law that requires TV stations and other mass media networks to give equal opportunity to all candidates running for an office. If the station airs an ad for one candidate it must give all other candidates running for the same office an opportunity to advertise. If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station However the station could refuse to air all campaign ads for an office. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. The station cannot refuse a protected ad based on content. such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. The law only covers ads from candidates though, it doesn't cover ads from third parties or Super PACs so John Oliver's ad wouldn't be protected by it. Many ads are created by Super PACs and wouldn't be covered by the law. NPR points out that in practice TV stations rarely refuse ads even if they're known to be false. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15619",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10948/"
]
} |
15,654 | These are the three things which I understand about the situation: He potentially discussed sanctions with a Russian ambassador He misrepresented or lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador He was vulnerable to blackmail This information has been published by many news organizations, but here's a specific source for the information above. I have two questions about the current situation: Was the content of Flynn's discussions with the Russian amabassador illegal? If so, why? Why did he resign? Was it because of one specific bullet point listed above, or was it the combination of all three and the ensuing bad press? | Update - WH Statement According to the White House spokesperson Sean Spicer, Trump seemed to have requested the resignation of Flynn due to a "trust issue" . President Donald Trump asked for Michael Flynn's resignation after he lost trust in his national security adviser for misleading Vice President Mike Pence over his calls with Russia's ambassador, the White House said Tuesday. "The level of trust between the President and Gen. Flynn had eroded to the point where he felt he had to make a change," Spicer told reporters. "The President was very concerned that Gen. Flynn had misled the vice president and others." Trump therefore felt he could not trust his top foreign policy right-hand and on key national security issues like China and the Middle East, Spicer said. (emphasis mine) Basically, he resigned due to violating the Logan Act and causing embarrassment to the Trump administration. The Logan Act specifically states: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (emphasis mine) According to this BBC article which includes a timeline of the events , Flynn first spoke to the Russian ambassador in the US on Dec 28: 28 December: Mr Flynn and Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak, exchange Christmas text messages by mobile phone Flynn then spoke to him after Obama introduced sanctions on Russia: 29 December: US President Barack Obama announces sanctions expelling 35 Russian diplomats for the country's alleged interference in the US presidential elections 29 December: Mr Flynn holds a phone call with the Russian ambassador Flynn took office together with President Trump and his executive team: 20 January 2017: President Trump and his executive team, including Mr Flynn, take office So, Flynn is still considered a private citizen before he took office on Jan 20. Thus, it's a violation of the Logan Act. As for prosecution, no one has been prosecuted under this act. This article by Vox states: No one has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act, but Flynn is facing a second and potentially far more dangerous investigation. The FBI is actively probing Flynn’s interactions with Kislyak, and resigning from his White House post won’t shield Flynn from potential future criminal prosecution. Flynn resigned to avoid embarrassment to the Trump administration since he misled both the public and the Trump administration yet the Trump administration publicly defended him. As he stated in his resignation letter: "I inadvertently briefed the Vice President-elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology." He denied the contact with the Russian ambassador in an interview on Feb 8. In a Feb. 8 interview with The Washington Post, Flynn categorically denied discussing sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak , repeating public assertions made in January by top Trump officials. One day after the interview, Flynn revised his account, telling The Post through a spokesman that he “couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.” (emphasis mine) Even the Vice-President Mike Pence defended him: Pence said in a Jan. 15 appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that Flynn’s conversations with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were “strictly coincidental” and had nothing to do with the Obama administration’s decision to punish Russia for meddling in the November election , which U.S. intelligence agencies agree was intended to help boost Trump's prospects. “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence told CBS. (emphasis mine) And the White House's Press Secretary: Pence wasn’t the only administration official to explain away Flynn’s contact with the Russian envoy. Press Secretary Sean Spicer, then a transition official, said Jan. 13 that Flynn’s calls were about scheduling a call for Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin after the swearing in. “That was it,” Spicer said at the time. “Plain and simple.” (emphasis mine) So, this caused embarrassment for the Trump administration since they misled the public. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15654",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12353/"
]
} |
15,753 | NOTE : to narrow down the question, I will make the following narrowing: Nazi symbols : salute and the swastika used in clear connection to Nazi (i.e. not this one) Communist symbols : hammer and sickle on red background clearly associated with totalitarian communist regimes According to this article , several countries made efforts towards banning communist symbols: Indonesia - "Communism alongside Marxism-Leninism are officially banned in Indonesia" US - "many states passed laws forbidding the display of red flags [...] United States Supreme Court held that such laws are unconstitutional. Moldova - "the law came into an effect in 2012. The Constitutional Court of Moldova found it unconstitutional" Ukraine - "the corresponding law was introduced in 2015" Estonia - "government signed the draft law to ban politically motivated display of Soviet and Nazi symbols in public place [...] it eventually failed the parliamentary committee on the grounds of the freedom of speech" Lithuania - "banned Soviet and Nazi symbols in 2008" Latvia - "Parliament has approved the ban of the display of Soviet and Nazi symbols at all public events" Albania, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Slovakia - "general bans on totalitarian ideology and its symbols" Poland - ban "fascist, communist or other totalitarian symbols" unless used " as part of artistic, educational, collecting or academic activity.". Constitutional Tribunal of Poland found this ban unconstitutional due to the violation of freedom of expression. EU - "In December 2013, a group of MEPs including Landsbergis addressed a letter to the President of the European Parliament, in which they requested a ban of symbols of totalitarian regimes." According to this article , Nazi salute is not legal (or severely limited) in several European countries such as Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Switzerland and Sweden. Regarding Nazi flags, this Wikipedia article states: in several European countries the display of flags associated with the
Nazi regime (see: Nazi flags) is subject to restriction or an outright
ban. Other arguments for the association between communism symbols and criminal acts: Declaration on Crimes of Communism ( source ) The Declaration on Crimes of Communism is a declaration signed on 25
February 2010 by several prominent European politicians, former
political prisoners, human rights advocates and historians, which
calls for the condemnation of communism. Council of Europe resolution 1481 (source) In the resolution 1481/2006 of the Council of Europe Parliamentary
Assembly (PACE) issued on January 25, 2006 during its winter session,
the Council of Europe "strongly condemns crimes of totalitarian
communist regimes". Condemning the Communist Regime in Romania (1945-1989)
as Illegitimate and Criminal ( unofficial report ) - this report comes in response to the appeal by the President of Romania, Traian Basescu , that the communist regime in Romania should be condemned on the basis of a report elaborated by a scientifically validated commission. Death toll - according to this source many people died under communist ruling in many countries: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Africa, Afghanistan, Vietnam and many others Question: Given above arguments why banning of communist symbols seem to be harder to obtain than banning of Nazi symbols? | Nazis are a specific group of people who have committed atrocities in Europe. It is directly linked with the idea of Racial Superiority and Antisemitism. We can agree that Nazism is morally bad. One who subscribes to being a Nazi is suggesting that the holocaust was justified. Communism is a political and economical theory. It describes a supposedly idealistic society where all property is communally owned, among other things. Regimes that are supposedly communist or strive to be communists have indeed committed atrocities. However, communism does not suggest that we do these atrocities. We cannot agree that Communism is bad. We definitely cannot say that Communism is morally bad. One who subscribes to communism does not suggest that he agrees with the purges of Stalin. Regarding the Hammer and Sickle Exclusively It is indeed banned in the several countries you've mentioned. It is important to note that Nazi symbol isn't banned universally either. In many countries (USA/Canada), they are allowed. Banning a Symbol is a violation of Free Speech. This article suggests that even in Germany, the ban on Nazi symbolism is soft. The Hammer and Sickle is a universal symbol of the communist revolution, rather than a specific symbol. While it is associated with totalitarian regimes, it is not only used for those regimes. The flag of Japan is not banned because it was used by the Japanese during World War II. To ban a symbol despite the Freedom of Speech is a show of extreme disapprobation. It suggests that any association with the symbol is an act terrible enough to be criminalized. The Soviet Union is not hated that much, despite the atrocities they've committed, especially in Russia. The Hammer and Sickle is a symbol for many communist regimes. To ban this symbol is to show extreme disapprobation to all these countries. It is questionable whether many people even though some of these regimes. Things that affect people personally have more effects. Western Europe was not subjected to Stalin's purges. As such, they do not harbour a hatred for Stalin as much as they do for Hitler. It is telling that most bans on the Communist symbolism are in countries that were Communist. Politics triumphs over justice. The Communists did not lose a major World War. In response to "But history tells us that many communist regimes failed on multiple levels (politically, economically, morally)." That is indeed correct. However, I would like to answer this with several arguments. History have shown that many communist regimes failed when implemented at a state level (a large scale). It has also worked on small scales (village level). History have shown that many capitalist regimes failed on several levels. It has shown that many democracies failed (and are failing) on several levels. It has shown that many of all form of government fail on several levels eventually. Communism have failed quicker than many though. Can communism work on a state level? History cannot prove that it can't. Economic and political systems continues to grow and adapt. What was considered to be the pinnacle of government 500 years ago is considered barbaric today. What is considered to be an ideal democracy today will be considered hilariously outdated in 100 years. It is irrelevant whether communism will ultimately lead to failure. Consider the following eco-political theory, which I will dub the Pigeon Theory: All properties should be owned by a single person between the age of 50-57 who is judged to be the best at economics. When this person has reached the age of 57, we cut off one of his legs. The theory's symbol is a pink pigeon. I do not need history to tell me that the Pigeon Theory is a terrible theory, and would fail at multiple levels if implemented. However, we should most definitely not ban the symbol of the pink pigeon, or criminalize the support of the Pigeon Theory. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15753",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
15,757 | Did Charlie Hebdo ever publish any cartoon satirizing Judaism? If Yes , was there any protest from the Jewish community? If No , why not? What is the reason (they have published enough cartoons satirizing Jesus and Mohammad. Why would they spare Judaism)? | Yes , they did make fun of Judaism alone from time to time, but not nearly as much as Christianity. A good example of what you could find in it ( translation: title "circumcise all males the eighth following their birth"; commentator: "why do we not wait for him to be old enough to understand?"; rabbi: "we have to enjoy our superiority while we still have it!" ). Here is an article (in French, but English speakers can get the gist) including statistics on their front covers. The overwhelming majority is about French politicians, and their favourite religious target is the Catholic church. Usually, a rabbi is present when they decide to make fun of religions altogether. There was legal action from LICRA ( International League against Racism and Antisemitism ) in 2008 against one of their journalists on antisemitism charges . It was not against the paper itself, though, but about some things the journalist said on the radio (more here ). The religions they make fun of are kind of correlated with the religious profile of France . Since they mostly tackle current affairs, one can also assume they make more fun of the noisiest people. The Jewish community in France, even though it is the largest in Europe , is still only around one percent of the general population (I say "around" since religious profiling is forbidden in France, all you can get are rough estimates). If you want to know more about who Charlie Hebdo pissed off, their website has a special court section. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15757",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
15,823 | Are there any provisions in the United States Constitution, or other U.S. laws or regulations, that specifically prohibit—or otherwise preclude—the president from appointing him- or herself to the Supreme Court? One possible consideration: At a minimum, since this would likely necessitate some overlap where the person has these two jobs at the same time, is it permissible for any single person to receive multiple paychecks from the Federal government on a given payday? For the purposes of this question, we can assume the Chief Executive is a judge or lawyer and ostensibly qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. | Yes, constitutionally, the POTUS can serve other posts simultaneously. This is because the Ineligibility Clause of the Constitution only applies to members of the Congress. No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. (emphasis mine) As this article by Quartz mentions that there isn't any law that disqualifies the POTUS from serving other posts simultaneously. Moreover, there’s nothing in the derivative federal laws that expressly disqualifies the president of the United States from serving simultaneously—either in Title 3 (the president) or Title 28 (the Judiciary)—much less requires his resignation (although if someone does find such a citation, please share). However, this being said, it doesn't mean that the President (Supreme Court Nominee) will be confirmed by the Senate as all Supreme Court nominees require Senate confirmation: "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate , shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..." (emphasis mine) However, there likely would be a legal challenge since the executive branch of the government should be independent from the judiciary branch. Also, a close, but not exact, example to your scenario would be William Taft who served as a Justice on the Supreme Court eight years after his term as POTUS ended. However, Taft did not appoint himself to the post (Warren Harding appointed him). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15823",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12132/"
]
} |
15,861 | Wikipedia: Third party is a term used in the United States for American political parties other than the Republican and Democratic parties. What is a fourth party candidate supposed to be? Wikipedia: The Fourth Party System is the term used in political science and history for the period in American political history from about 1896 to 1932 that was dominated by the Republican Party, excepting the 1912 split in which Democrats held the White House for eight years. American history texts usually call it the Progressive Era. The concept was introduced under the name "System of 1896" by E.E. Schattschneider in 1960, and the numbering scheme was added by political scientists in the mid-1960s. 1 I've read it in the following articles Third (and fourth) party candidates face challenges for exposure, ballot position , Why Not Third And Fourth Party Candidates For President? . I can't seem to figure out, from the context what's meant by a fourth party candidate. I guess it's a kind of an overstatement for a candidate from a relatively small third party, as opposed to the bigger ones? | The confusion you have stems from mixing up two absolutely unrelated terms, that are united only in that they have the word "party" in them - as a noun in the first use; and an adjective as a second. Party lists/counts; and a concept of " Third Party ". Theoretically, in USA, there can be, and are, many political parties. There are no rules or restrictions on creating a new party. Practically, due to FPTP voting , United States has a (mostly) two-party system; in that two main parties (Democrats and Republicans as of 2016) in practice enjoy a nearly unchallenged duopoly on political power. E.g., in 2016 elections, while candidates from 4 parties ran for President; the two "main" parties' candidates combined got 96% of popular vote and 100% of electors. As such, parties OTHER than the two dominant parties are called " Third party " in aggregate, as in "#1. Democrats. #2. Republicans, and #3. all other minor insignificant parties". There's no formal "Fourth" party as a term, or as a concept. The expression you saw in those two articles was just some colloquialism that has nothing to do with common political discourse - some writer trying a wise-alec wording, based on word play (correct usage of "third party" as in "all parties other than main two" vs incorrect usage "third" party as in "party #3", which implies that there's also #4). Totally independently of the first wording, there's a concept of " Party systems " in American political historical analysis. Note that in this usage, the word "party" is an adjective used to describe the system, as opposed to a noun as in the usage noted in the first part. The concept of "party system" was introduced by English scholar James Bryce in American Commonwealth (1885). The "systems" are delineated by a span of years when they are active, for example the Fourth Party System was active in 1896 to 1932 The "Fourth" here applies to the noun "System", not the adjective "party" - a less confusing alternate expression would be "The fourth system of parties". | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15861",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9064/"
]
} |
15,907 | In Dutch politics, the right-ish parties are in favour of more roads, whereas the left-ish parties are against more roads. Although I'm more left-oriented, I disagree with their reasoning. They want to invest in public transport for a better environment. They argue that more roads will lead to more cars, causing even more traffic jams than before. This reasoning sounds rather silly to me. What does science/research say about whether more roads will lead to a better traffic flow? | TL;DR No. Roads do not lead sustainably to less traffic jams. In the extreme short term they can do but it can be disastrous for the rest of the traffic network and they increase congestion in the long term through induced demand. Almost all peer-reviewed studies about actual traffic networks across the world in every continent reach the same conclusions. Evidence The rule of induced demand says widening highways and adding roads does not ease congestion, and often makes it worse. In 2009, two economists—Matthew Turner of the University of Toronto
and Gilles Duranton of the University of Pennsylvania—decided to
compare the amount of new roads and highways built in different U.S.
cities between 1980 and 2000, and the total number of miles driven in
those cities over the same period. “We found that there’s this perfect one-to-one relationship,” said
Turner. If a city had increased its road capacity by 10 percent between 1980
and 1990, then the amount of driving in that city went up by 10
percent. If the amount of roads in the same city then went up by 11
percent between 1990 and 2000, the total number of miles driven also
went up by 11 percent. It’s like the two figures were moving in
perfect lockstep, changing at the same exact rate. In transportation, this well-established response is known in various contexts as the Downs-Thomson Paradox, The Pigou-Knight-Downs Paradox or the Lewis-Mogridge Position: a new road may provide motorists with some level of respite from congestion in the short term, but almost all of the benefit from the road will be lost due to increased demand in the longer term. To add insult to injury, while more roads may solve congestion locally, more traffic on the road network may result in more congestion elsewhere. In Sydney, for example, the WestConnex may improve traffic conditions on Parramatta Road, but may worsen congestion in the city as a whole. This is reflected in global traffic initiatives China China has increased its expressway network from 16,300 km in the year 2000 to around 70,000 km in 2010. Yet the average commute time in Beijing increased by 25 minutes between 2012 and 2013 to 1 hour and 55 minutes. Spain Distinguishing between traffic generated exclusively from the expansion of the road network (induced demand) and that resulting from other demand factors is of crucial importance to properly designed transport policies. This paper analyzes and quantifies the induced demand for road transport for Spain’s main regions from 1998 to 2006, years that saw mobility in Spain attain its highest growth rate . United States Empirical evidence of Induced Traffic Disparate evidence indicates that the provision of extra road capacity results in a greater volume of traffic. The amount of extra traffic must be heavily dependent on the context, size and location of road schemes, but an appropriate average value is given by an elasticity of traffic volume with respect to travel time of about −0.5 in the short term, and up to −1.0 in the long term. As a result, an average road improvement has induced an additional 10% of base traffic in the short term and 20% in the long term: individual schemes with induced traffic at double this level may not be very unusual, especially for peak periods. Induced traffic is particularly seen on the alternative routes that road improvements are intended to relieve. Europe Traffic Forecasts Ignoring Induced Demand: a
Shaky Fundament for Cost-Benefit Analyses Although the phenomenon of induced traffic has been theorized for more than 60 years and is
now widely accepted among transport researchers, the traffic-generating effects of road capacity
expansion are still often neglected in transport modelling. Such omission can lead to serious bias
in the assessments of environmental impacts as well as the economic viability of proposed road
projects, especially in situations where there is a latent demand for more road capacity. Australia In Sydney, there is similar evidence from traffic volumes crossing the harbour. The Sydney Harbour Bridge was carrying a stable traffic volume of around 180,000 vehicles per day from 1986 to 1991. The Sydney Harbour Tunnel opened in 1992, and the total volume of traffic crossing the harbour increased in 1995 to almost 250,000 vehicles per day. This 38 per cent increase in traffic can be attributed to induced demand and not to population growth (which was around 4 per cent during this period). Why is this? The reasoning is because of the fundamental rule - New roads will create new drivers, resulting in the intensity of traffic staying the same. This is argued in detail in the following peer reviewed scientific study The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities published in the American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2616-52, October and in the National Bureau of Economic Research. It can actually be the that reverse is true . Removing traffic lanes has no adverse effects and leads to greater adoption of public transport. San Francisco removed a highway section, called the Central Freeway, that carried nearly 100,000 cars per day in 1989. The boulevard that replaced it now only carries around 45,000 daily cars and yet they move. Civil engineers liken traffic to a gas: It expands to fill the space provided. As civil engineer and sustainability advocate Charles Marohn so eloquently put it, “Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants.” Refuting Evidence Refuting evidence is covered in the academic research above and soundly shown to be biased and short termist in nature. However, a cited academic study can be found here . The debate that expenditure on new or existing roads induces more traffic has intensified during the 1990s in most developed countries. In this paper the controversy is readdressed from a UK perspective, using the method of Granger noncausality. Results indicate that aggregate expenditure on new and existing roads does not induce additional traffic in the Granger sense. Conversely, the results found that traffic Granger causes road expenditure. The importance of these results, along with issues concerning the selection and specification of dynamic models, are discussed. However that report was widely rebutted by a subsequent investigation which directly refuted it. A recent article by Prakash et al. (Applied Economics, 33, 1579–85,
2001) asserted that induced travel effects do not occur. This paper is
criticized on several grounds. It disregards much of the recent work
in this area that has empirically estimated induced travel
relationships. The models specified are inappropriate for properly
addressing this question, both in their use of road expenditure data
(based on a misunderstanding of how this may relate to traffic growth)
and specification of a model that does not account for other variables
that generally have a large effect on traffic growth (notably
population and income growth). The evidence in the literature is
summarized and an analysis of UK road expenditure data shows that
expenditure is not a good measure of actual road capacity that is
built. This wired article researching traffic in Texas indicates that the published research may be wrong. Two things might explain why the Dallas project worked. The first is that the bottleneck on that highway was a very specific problem: a two-lane stretch connecting three-lane highways. Opening the shoulders eliminated the choke points of squeezing into a tighter space. The second and more cynical explanation for the project’s success is that it wasn’t actually successful. The traffic numbers published this month include just a few days after the new lanes opened in September. Traffic has increased since then, though the TxDOT says traffic is still moving faster than before the project. It’s quite possible unbearable congestion will return, as more locals change their behavior to take advantage of what is suddenly a smooth ride—that’s the fundamental principle of induced demand. Rebuttal Summary By exaggerating the economic benefits of road capacity increase and underestimating its negative effects, omission of induced traffic can result in overallocation of public money on road construction and correspondingly less focus on other ways of dealing with congestion and environmental problems in urban areas. Weakest Link Congestion is determined by the weakest links in the road network. If road capacity expansion does not involve widening of these bottleneck links, congestion may simply move to another part of the network without solving the congestion problem. Moreover, it could potentially make congestion across the network even worse. The Braess Paradox is a famous example in which building new roads in the wrong location can lead to longer travel times for everyone, even without induced demand , because new roads may lead more car drivers to the weakest links in the network. The reverse may also be true: removing roads may even improve traffic conditions. Conclusion The majority of published research holds that adding lanes or roads makes congestion worse. All of the information supporting road addition and widening is drawn from governmental sources from the departments responsible for spending the money on the transport initiative. Few peer-reviewed, academic studies support road-widening or addition as a positive measure for traffic congestion and easing. More info here , here and here . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15907",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12529/"
]
} |
15,933 | The Trump administration has been targeting reputable news organizations like The Times and CNN, calling them "fake news". What is this administration trying to accomplish here? | TL;DR I have been as bi-partisan as possible. President Trump is attempting to discredit the media as they attempt to expose aspects of his administration they find worthy of journalism. Some may be driven by editorial bias however the majority are reporting genuine news-worthy stories, often using direct statements and quotes from the Trump administration or Donald Trump himself. Due to the lack of experience of the administration they have made clumsy mistakes which look, at first glance, to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the US Constitution, political affairs, legal structure and general all-round US civics. This is extremely embarrassing and de-legitimizes President Trump. In response to being unable to prevent this, the President has attacked the media directly trying to erode their credibility and trust. The situation is made worse by the epidemic, as described by Trump, of information leaking to the Press from the judicial and law enforcement agencies, from the intelligence community, from the legislature and from Trump's own administration. When questioned, anonymous staffers have said that the leaks must continue as they uncover more and more information they believe should be in the hands of the populace. Reports are that Admin staff are now using an encrypted chat platform called Confide to leak material freely . Overview His primary method of attack is to use the repetition of a simplistic phrase Fake News. You are Fake News. Failing Fake News. which plays well into the demographics of the voter base he is targeting; many of which distrust the Government or any suitably large organisation (which can be warranted given that the US Government engineered the biggest gold theft in history from the US populace ) and ongoing cultural divisions between North and South USA. The Trump rhetoric is a lesser version of the message distributed by media outlets such as InfoWars. They share the same demographic and espouse conspiracy theory, paranoia and fear of Government, which Trump alludes to frequently with the qualifier We don't know. We need to find out what's going on. In addition Trump uses the propaganda technique, what-about-ism which is a common tactic for deflecting criticism or oversight. Whataboutism is a term describing a propaganda technique used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. When criticisms were levelled at the Soviet Union, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the Western world. It represents a case of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy), a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument. Many of the media outlets targeted by the Trump administration are labelled as liberal which is a term used in the USA as a pejorative by non-liberal voters.
Some are, admittedly, outwardly liberal (CNN, Guardian) whilst others are attempting to strike a completely non-partisan reporting platform (BBC) although conspiracy theorists would argue otherwise. This is part of a wider trend showing that Democrats are becoming more liberal and Republicans are becoming more Conservative with the USA becoming more polarised. Fake News The Trump administration, and the President, have also sought to pivot the label " fake news " from referring to largely fabricated reports describing fantastical and untrue events which veer often into paranoid, anti-authority conspiracy theory to a more insidious label applied to the press corps as a whole; but also specifically any press institution classed as critical of the Trump administration. This approach allows the administration to avoid direct criticism of individual events and policies by simply labeling the entirety of the press fake and thus, anything they print or investigate is fake by proxy. In doing so any nuanced investigation into any aspect of the Trump Presidency is smothered and overwhelmed as a figment of the fake news . There is a discernible pattern and correlation showing that fake news is primarily endorsed, shared and buoyed by right-wing voters. Fake news / conspiracy theory often centers on anti-governance and dovetails with ideological views of Trump and right-wing voters meaning they are more susceptible to considering fake news websites as legitimate. known false news stories that appeared in the three months before the election, those favoring Trump were shared a total of 30 million times on Facebook, while those favoring Clinton were shared eight million times; Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election "Pope backs Trump", "Hillary sold weapons to ISIS", "FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead" - these fake headlines all went viral on Facebook in the run up to the election, gaining such high engagement that BuzzFeed published an analysis on how they had outperformed real news on Facebook. Donald Trump also courted conspiracy theories. Initially, he suggested Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK , perpetuated the myth of Obama not being born in the United States (which he later conceded ) and repeatedly claimed climate change as a hoax all of which are the preserve of fake news websites. Trump's unpredictability and his fueling of distrust of his opponents led to a growth in fake news that was supportive of him which now flames a cycle of de-legitimizing the established press making the term fake news essentially meaningless and more of a stick to beat the mainstream press with than a phenomenon in itself. Donald Trump said recently that "any negative polls are fake news". Wider Pattern There is considerable historical precedence to suggest that Trump is engaging in a wider de-legitimising of the Press in preparation for a wider assault on the Constitution, of which a free press, is a cornerstone. Trump has continually referred to Fascist rhetoric directly (Drain the Swamp was from Mussolini) and he refers to the "lying press" daily which was also an early tactic of Adolf Hitler. In additional, many of his policies have been echoed in Fascist leaders throughout history but that deconstruction is for another post. Mussolini established a High Commission for the press in the spring of 1929. Insisting that the Commission would not interfere with the freedom of the press, Mussolini’s Keeper of the Seals, Alfredo Rocco, nevertheless maintained an exception for “any activity contrary to the national interest,” “faithfulness to the Fatherland” naturally assuming the position of ultimate importance. Journalists were, like all other professions, encouraged to see their
occupation as one of many forms of service to the nation, to
participate actively in the education and inculcation of the Italian
people. Right now, it is clear that far from embracing a transparent White House administration and striking a conciliatory tone with the free press of the world, Donald Trump is doubling down on his attacks and is taking punitive measures against what he considers to be a hostile actor in the 2017 United States of America. Whether you consider the press hostile to Donald Trump or hostile to the USA is largely a question of your cultural upbringing and voter persuasion but a case to suggest Breitbart is a better custodian of Democratic First amendment rights rather than the BBC or the New York Times is nonexistent. For instance, the New York Times, established in 1851, continually printed in New York, has won over 120 Pulitzer Prizes ; more than any other newspaper organisation. It is considered a " Newspaper of Record " along with the LA Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. One whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered professional and typically authoritative. However, a number of historians and commentators have begun to draw parallels and conclusions from the timing of Donald Trump's outbursts and attacks. It appears that the most memorable attacks, often considered buffoonery, are synchronised with serious legislative events and revelations which become buried behind the latest "tweet-rage" . This is speculation but not unprecedented. Psychological Suitability There is a growing trend in reporting questioning the mental health of Donald Trump. Supporters of the President claim this is a distraction and unprovoked attack however in recent weeks more and more psychiatric and psychologist specialists have been speaking up using various news agencies and platforms to express alarm at his erratic behaviour. For instance, in a letter to the New York Times, 35 mental health professionals warned that the "grave emotional instability" indicated in Mr Trump's speech and actions made him "incapable of serving safely as president". But the majority of mental health professionals have refrained from making public statements, following a self-imposed principle known as the "Goldwater rule" , adopted by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1973. His attacks on the press are held as further indicators that he takes negative reporting about him or his administration extremely seriously and he cannot refocus on his task at hand until he has launched a counter-offensive against the aggrieving party. This is further evidence from mental health professionals that Donald Trump may lack the restraint required for the Commander in Chief role, a situation exacerbated by his continued endorsement of ideas which are best labelled as conspiracy theory. Impact So far, Trump's approach to the media, labelled as the MSM (Mainstream Media) by predominantly right-wing and/or libertarian demographics has played well with his core voter base who believe that the media bloc are part of a larger coordinated conspiracy against him and the right wing in general. For instance; the Financial Times reports Mr Trump’s most recent Gallup approval rating was 88 per cent among Republicans, which is historically normal, or even good, for a president within his own party. Even after a chaotic first month characterised by protests, the shambolic rollout of a travel ban, cabinet shake-ups and allegations of contacts with Russia, a dedicated core of US adults continues to approve of the job the president is doing. This has culminated in the Republican Party releasing the "Mainstream Media Accountability Survey" which asks a series of questions focusing on the alleged shortcomings of the press, naming some media outlets. Unfortunately for the President, his attacks are having the opposite effect as intended in the wider USA. Voter trust in the media is rising , almost daily, and the Legislature are becoming increasingly alarmed at his rhetoric . Though he is polling better among his own party than some predecessors were at the same time including Bush and Reagan, Mr Trump’s overall approval rating remains lower than that of every other president soon after inauguration, at least since polling data became available in 1945. The main difference is that Mr Trump’s approval ratings among non-Republicans are much lower than other presidents. Most tellingly, his daily claims that media outlets are failing (NYT especially) is being soundly rebutted by business reports showing the New York Times is showing rapid growth in subscriber numbers and quarterly profitability as well a stock price surge to the highest in 2.5 years . His refusal to accept even basic facts is not helping his image as balanced and able to accept criticism; in fact, it paints a picture of a man creating his own reality around him in direct opposition to facts, truth and empirical evidence. Addendum Content & Quotes for Further Reading Part of the left and right divide comes from where Americans get their information. Last year, Fox News, the top news choice for Trump voters, became the most-watched cable news network on US television, surpassing the sports network ESPN for the first time. Nearly nine in 10 consistently conservative respondents told Pew they trusted Fox News, while only 6 per cent of consistently liberal respondents said the same. Mainstream news outlets reported on Mr Trump’s low inauguration
turnout compared to Mr Obama’s 2009 inauguration. According to a poll
that week, fewer than a third of Trump voters agreed that Mr Obama had
a larger turnout. This information gap translates to tangible differences in the
opinions US voters hold. In early February, Trump adviser Kellyanne
Conway mistakenly said that two Iraqi refugees perpetrated “the
Bowling Green massacre”. No Bowling Green massacre ever occurred, a
fact that many mainstream news outlets reported, but a majority of
Trump voters still told pollsters that the non-existent massacre is
why the US needs Mr Trump’s immigration executive order. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15933",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12535/"
]
} |
15,990 | Important note : although I use references about the current President, my question should be regarded as a general one, not specifically related to Donald Trump. According to this article Donald Trump disclosed a few details of one of his previous physical examinations: Bornstein’s letter said Trump takes a statin to lower his cholesterol.
So it is difficult to judge his cholesterol level of 169, his
high-density lipoprotein level of 63 or his low-density lipoprotein
level of 94. All are in the normal range. [...]
Trump’s blood pressure of 116 over 70 was normal, as was his
blood-sugar level, [...] liver function and thyroid
function tests are all within the normal range [...] But, nothing about any mental health examination. According to this article , there seem to be a debate about Trump's mental health: In a letter to the New York Times, 35 mental health professionals
warned that the "grave emotional instability" indicated in Mr Trump's
speech and actions made him "incapable of serving safely as
president". I am not interested in the actual details, only that there is a doubt coming from the some professionals about the mental health of the President. Of course, without proper professional evaluation, everything can be regarded as speculation. On the theoretical level, according to this article , it is not impossible for one to suddenly develop mental illness, but this is typically linked to other condition. So, it can happen during a four-year term. Most mental disorders develop slowly and get worse with time.
Therefore, the sudden onset of a mental disorder is a red flag for
biological abnormalities such as vascular disease, strokes,
nutritional deficits, infections, hormone irregularities, tumors, or
exposure to toxins. This article informs about how can a President be impeached: Well, the Constitution provides that the president can be impeached
for treason, bribery, and what it calls other high crimes and
misdemeanors. The Constitution doesn't actually define what "other high crimes and
misdemeanors" means. The historical sense is that it basically means,
kind of, serious political crimes, sort of crimes against the state,
crimes that involve abuse of office, abuse of power, abuse of trust. So, nothing about mental illness. I assume that mental health assessment is harder to be objectively performed, as opposed to physical one, which deals with clear intervals of normality, but I think that many aspects reached scientific consensus and can be used. One example of such use is for mental evaluation of drivers, as indicated in this article (my emphasis on aspects that I find relevant for a possible evaluation of a President): Mental Requirements Proper integration/interpretation of sensory input Focus of attention Proper associations of thought Appropriate judgment Although driving a car (is done by one person) is very different from running a country (an entire staff exists), one could argue that running a country is by far more complex. Question: is there a legal way that can be used to force the President of United States to undergo a mental health examination? | No. There is no way that interested members of the public or Congress could force the President of the United States to undergo a mental health examination. In principle, a mental health examination could be ordered for the President, like anyone else, incident to a criminal prosecution of him for some crime committed in his personal, rather than official capacity, or by someone in his family seeking to impose a guardianship or conservatorship upon him. But, none of those resources are available to the general public and in practice, it is beyond implausible that this would happen. Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution , which governs an involuntary determination incapacity of the President, relies on the general good personal judgment of the President's cabinet arising from their daily dealings with him rather than any formal examination process. It says: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal
officers of the executive departments or of such other body as
Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately
assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the
powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a
majority of either the principal officers of the executive department
or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within
four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.
Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within
forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress,
within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written
declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days
after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote
of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to
discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall
resume the powers and duties of his office. Thus, a mental health examination, even if Mr. Trump "failed it" would have no formal relevance to his ability to stay in office. Instead, the threshold issue is vested in the cabinet, and in the event of a dispute with the President, the ultimate resolution is vested in Congress. Congress might have the authority to use its subpoena power to compel a mental examination of the President at that stage (i.e. after the cabinet triggers the process and the President resists it) in furtherance of its deliberative duty under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, but that is far from obvious. The manner in which its deliberations are to proceed in the three weeks allotted to Congress to make its decision are not spelled out. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/15990",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
16,001 | While this uses examples that could be seen as supporting one side or the other, it is intended as a politically neutral question, to the extent that that is possible This has come up more and more in political discussions I've been having recently, mostly to do with the American election. Basically, whenever a point is brought up, it's not really addressed, and is countered with something that the other candidate has done, or a slur against the other candidate. E.g. If Donald Trump's racism is brought up, a response I've heard is that Hillary Clinton is also racist. Another one I've heard is attacking Obama's policies on illegal immigration in response to an attack on Donald Trump's policies (e.g. his "wall"). These are just examples, and the accuracy, or not, of the counterpoint is not the issue, the issue is that the counterpoint doesn't address, or attempt to defend against the point made. This makes it very difficult to have a level-headed political discussion without it degenerating into "Donald Trump did this", "So did Hillary Clinton" and vice-versa. So my question is this: How can a meaningful political discussion be had with someone who uses Whataboutism extensively? | Note: this is a pretty long answer; and the specific points regarding whataboutism are at the last section, so you may want to skip there first if that's all you care about. How can a level-headed political discussion be had with someone who uses Whataboutism extensively? Ultimately, by not having a level-headed political discussion. OK, this wording was a bit ironic, but in reality, many observers note that people in general are not often moved by facts - especially when said facts contradict their core political beliefs (the cognitive psychology terms for that are "selective bias"/"biased assimilation" and even worse, " Backfire effect " when the views are strengthened). In short, human brains are built in by evolution to find arguments to disprove any facts provided that contradict one's deeply held core beliefs; political ones chiefly among them. The exact evolutionary psychology reasoning behind this is somewhat off-topic so I won't go into details. But seriously, I would like to have such a discussion. So be it, Jedi.... The four general approaches to convincing people I would recommend are: Overwhelming evidence. This was discussed on "You are not so smart" podcast covering Backfire effect , in essence, there's a threshold at which that cognitive system breaks a dam, so to speak, and starts incorporating conflicting facts. But one, or two, or three, facts, would not be enough. Use proper framing. According to Moral Foundations theory; conservatives and liberals are swayed not by different facts; but by different framing of the facts. E.g. to convince a conservative, you frame things in terms of loyalty and patriotism; to convince a liberal, in terms of "fairness". Don't use facts. Experts on persuasion generally state that facts are the weakest way to persuade someone. Emotions etc... are far more effective . If you don't believe experts on persuasion because they weren't persuasive enough, here's a fact for you: psychologists confirmed that finding . Stop using personal attacks, or things that seem like personal attacks . "Donald Trump's racism" - to anyone who voted for Trump for reasons other than being racist, this mainly sounds like you are accusing THEM of supporting racism. This sounds cathartic and profound among your circle of Trump opponents - but has absolutely the opposite effect when talking to a Trump voter. But what about whataboutism ? Well, it really depends on (1) what your goal is and (2) what your argument is. We'll cover goal-based discourse in the next section, but let's examine your arguments - make sure that they are both valid AND persuasive. For example, you used an example of "Donald Trump racism". First off, note the last bullet point in the last section. No matter whether you have a valid argument or not, take care to not frame it in a way that will appear to the other person as an attack on them , in the latter case they'll at best tune you out and at worst will be even more antagonistic to your point of view. Second, make sure you even have a valid argument. Have you done research outside your own political bubble to confirm that there's actually such a thing as "Donald Trump racism" (outside of a logical fallacy of "some racists support Trump, therefore Trump must be racist")? Third, make sure you're speaking the same language and you're not succumbing to "Intentionality fallacy". In this specific example, 90+% chances are that you as Trump opponent are using a modern progressive definition of "racism" (anything that doesn't explicitly promote welfare of specific minority races, usually in Marxist "equality of outcome" context); whereas your Trump supporting opponent likely uses the pre-postmodernist, formal definition of "racism" (viewing one race as better than another, and expressing negative attitudes based on that view). You might like to think that you own the discourse... which you don't if your goal is to convince someone else. Also, chances are, you are committing another fallacy, that of confusing negative attitude about things OTHER than race, that just happen to be correlated with race (Just because a large majority of illegal aliens in USA are Hispanic, accusing someone of being anti-Hispanic racist just because they oppose illegal immigration is at best, a logical fallacy they will ignore or point out; at worst, likely to cause them to oppose you even more due to first point). And finally, you need to first decide what is your goal ? - and adjust your approach to the best way to achieving that goal. Is your goal to make someone not vote for Trump? Then you need to find out first WHY they want to vote for Trump . Chances are, they have far more important reasons to vote for someone than a single issue, no matter how important that one issue is to you personally. So you need to first listen to the person you're discussing with; and then argue on the points they care about. If they care about economy and jobs, start with "Hillary's economic plan will bring more jobs than Trump's". OK, you may be wrong about that but at least you're now discussing the point the other person actually cares about; and therefore is more likely to think deeper about; instead of automatically rebut as "this is just an attack on my candidate whom I like because of jobs". But what about whataboutism ? you didn't address how I can handle that I go back to asking what your goal is. Is it to convince someone of specific point? Or to convince them to vote a different way? Or to do something specific? Or to simply acknowledge that you're right and they are wrong? Let's say you're theoretically right (Trump's immigration policies are awful despite being, for example, far far softer than, say Mexico's own immigration policies ). If it's to convince them of a specific point (or to take specific action ): Don't use partisan talking points . What does Trump's view on immigration have to do with convincing someone that allowing illegal aliens the path to citizenship is a good idea? (and yes, they likely view the issue EXACTLY the way I just framed it, not the way you framed it). So, don't argue with them about Trump, in the first place. Argue the merits of the policy - first, ask what THEIR reasons to think a specific way are; then try to convince them on the merits to your viewpoint, using the ideas earlier in my answer. How is this important in the context of whataboutism? Because when you argue policy; there's no reason, or way, to do a "what about" response. You: "Border wall is bad, for reasons X, Y and Z" Them: "But Hillary Clinton supported border wall" You: "So, Hillary was wrong too. Again, border wall is bad, for reasons X, Y and Z" If it's to convince them to vote a different way Then, explain how voting that way is bad for the person you're arguing with . As noted above, if they care about economy, arguing about Trump's real-or-made-up racism is not going to change their mind. How is this important in the context of whataboutism? Because if you argue about points they don't care about, the backfire effect will take place and they won't care to listen to your points. Whataboutism isn't the root cause of the issue here, it's just a randomly used somewhat effective tactic of rejecting your arguments - but only one of many possible tactics. Bonus round: not all uses of whataboutism are invalid One last point to make: as Alexander O'Mara noted, "whataboutism" is a colloquial term that basically seems to frequently descend into "you're a hypocrite" rebuttal. On one hand, that kind of rebuttal is often is symptomatic of "Appeal to Hypocrisy" logical fallacy. On the other hand, sometimes a sober self-examination would reveal that the argument being made may, indeed, at its core, be hypocritical; and as such, "Appeal to Hypocrisy" in that situation isn't really a fallacy at all, but indeed a fully logical rebuttal. To address that, check your hypocritical privilege. An example would be: You : Donald Trump isn't fit to be President because he behaved disrespectfully towards women, and cheated on his wives, and people who do so are unfit for Presidency. Opponent : So did an accused rapist and sexual harasser Bill Clinton. Have you voted for Bill Clinton, twice? Have you publicly castigated John Edwards or JFK? Then you clearly don't believe either of your own two arguments, and are just using them as a convenient excuse to attack Trump as opposed to a sincerely held belief . Why should I subscribe to your belief when even you don't hold it sincerely ? Importantly here, the rebuttal is NOT "your point is wrong" (which indeed would be a H.fallacy). It is "your point is irrelevant to the discussion, since it's not a sincerely held belief for either one of us ". | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16001",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12635/"
]
} |
16,025 | The latest (but not recent) episode I remember is this vote from June 2016, when the US senate rejected restrictions on sale of weapons to people on the terror watch list. These are people that the same government deems too dangerous to allow on planes, but apparently preventing them from acquiring weapons is "against freedom"? (or something along those lines?) On a similar line, I remember that also legislation to prevent people with mental health issues to acquire guns was stopped. Why is this? What in the US political culture makes it so difficult to approve this kind of legislation? Is it all based on the slippery slope "if they take them away from them, then they will take them away from me"? Note: I am not interested in answers that only say "the republicans" here or "the democrats" there, both parties have stopped similar legislation : But the Democratic-controlled Senate voted against legislation pushed by the president that would have expanded background checks for firearm purchases to gun shows and online sales. | Americans hold that they have a right to bear arms. This is codified in the Second Amendment to the Constitution (the first ten amendments are called the "Bill of Rights") A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In general, the government is not allowed to restrict the rights of a particular person without due process of law. There is no due process of law involved in being put on a watch list, and there is no due process to check whether you are on one and to appeal your placement. (As of this answer, the only time the no fly list has actually been challenged in court it was found unconstitutional , so lawmakers may also want to overhaul the process itself before expanding its use, or get rid of it completely) In comparison, it is generally accepted in America that a person convicted of a felony loses their right to own guns even after they have served their sentence. This is because, contrary to being put on a watch list, they were convicted of a crime in an open court, after being afforded their various rights around due process of law. To answer the question about the slippery slope, there is a camp of people whose primary motivation for upholding due process is that the people can use them to resist an authoritarian government. However, the more general argument is simply that the government has no business taking away arms without due process of law. The people have a right to have them, so the government does not have the power to arbitrarily take them away. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16025",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7476/"
]
} |
16,051 | So I'm having this argument. I see people on the news testify that if Obamacare is repealed, then they won't be able to pay for their preexisting condition and will die. However, the opponents argue that Medicaid will foot the bill and treatment is never denied, even in the days before Obamacare. Which is true? Does Obamacare cover more than Medicaid? It's hard to find sources on this because I feel like every article somehow dodges this question. EDIT: Hey guys, the answers here are all insightful. Don't forget to play nice. I'm assuming we all have similar moral compasses on what is right and what is wrong. None of us believe that people deserve to die because of health issues or poverty, but it can be easy to misconstrue each other when we talk about differing plans. Regarding the original question, some stats in the answers provided have shown that there is a gap left open by Medicaid, something I didn't know existed. | In a nutshell, the income threshold necessary to qualify for Medicaid (the poverty line prior to Medicaid expansion ) is lower than the amount of income needed to pay for the medical care that Medicaid provides to people who are eligible for it. For example, if you need dialysis to stay healthy (which is not ER room care), it costs more than $70,000 per year . And, if you need this care and don't get this care, you die in a matter of weeks or months . This is one example and actually not a great one in terms of health care access because there is actually a special end stage renal disease program in Medicare that covers this particular treatment if you are uninsured. But, there are many conditions that have the same cost/risk profile as end stage renal disease, in that they require long term, regular, expensive care to avoid a dramatic shortening of your life, for which there is no special coverage. For example, there is no counterpart to Medicare if you have ALS or advanced stage MS . If you do not qualify for Medicaid and do not have health insurance at the time you need health care, possibly because you cannot afford health insurance at the market rate, which is on average $16,351 per year for a family of four , then the only health care you can insist on having provided to you is ER care necessary to stabilize your condition pursuant to EMTALA (the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act). And, many people who do not qualify for Medicaid at the poverty line cutoff level cannot afford to buy market rate health insurance. But, care that stabilizes your condition from an ER is not sufficient to keep people alive. Therefore, some people who lose Medicaid will die from lack of access to health care. Basically, pre-ACA, if you are at risk of dying for lack of medical care, you have to quit any job that pays you above the poverty line even if you could earn more but not enough to pay for health insurance. Lots of working class people with serious health problems did this prior to the ACA. Moreover, a study looking at medical records for 30,000 people as a random sample compared death rates before and after Medicaid expansion ( to 138% of the poverty line ) and expanded private health insurance covers under the ACA due to mandates and credits (which apply up to 400% of the poverty line ), and demonstrated statistically that 50,000 lives were saved by the ACA over a three year time period. The Washington Post, which reviewed the data found that this was an underestimate and that 87,000 deaths avoided was a more accurate figure. In addition, $12 million of costs were saved and about 1.3 million people who would have been harmed from lack of medical care without dying avoided that harm. Presumably, death rates would rise again if it was contracted and there were more uninsured individuals. About two-thirds of the lives saved involved death arising from sepsis associated with pressure ulcers and adverse drug events according to the Washington Post account. For a family of four in 2016 the relevant ACA income cutoffs were as follows: 100% of poverty line: $24,300 138% of poverty line: $33,534 400% of poverty line: $97,200 (tax credits can be applied in advance rather than when a return is filed if your income is $60,750 or more which is 250% of the poverty line). This was causally related to the fact that : As of the end of 2015, the number of uninsured nonelderly Americans
stood at 28.5 million, a decrease of nearly 13 million since 2013. Note that this data implies that roughly 1 life is saved per year per 1000 additional people with health insurance. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16051",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5098/"
]
} |
16,071 | Has a POTUS ever been called for jury duty? It's everyone's civic duty after all, right? | Yep, presidents have been called for jury duty before . Of course they never serve on a jury. 'Running a country' and all is a good excuse. Perhaps slightly more comically is that even SCOTUS gets called for jury duty , but they also have a good excuse. Trump though shouldn't be at risk of jury duty during his presidency because he just recently served . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16071",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12367/"
]
} |
16,102 | From what I understand, Trump is an isolationist / non-interventionist, at least more so than previous presidents. On the other hand, Trump wants to massively increase military spending: [Trump] wants "one of the greatest military build-ups" in American history. It doesn't seem to make much sense to increase the already high US military spending while at the same time not wanting to engage in large-scale military actions. The current spending seems more than enough to finance small-scale actions against say ISIS. Why does Trump want "one of the greatest military build-ups in American history" ? Is it part of future foreign policy? Just pandering to his base? | Bottom Line Upfront: If you don't allow the military to plan for maintenance, but keep them working, then it will cost more to fix them when you start giving them money. Part of it is most certainly about pandering to his base. 67% of Republicans believe too little is spent on defense . Though, there is room for universal appeal, where this could be an effort to unify the country, because 41% of individuals surveyed have a great deal of confidence in the military, while an additional 32% have quite a lot. The large portion for why Trump is pushing a budget increase is the decay of military readiness under sequester and continuing resolution. Lacking a formal budget and subsisting off of uncertain continuing resolutions for six years, usually followed by a 'government shutdown,' the military is challenged to put major maintenance items on contract. This causes maintenance to be deferred, for ships and airplanes . Paul Ryan is on the note that Continuing Resolutions are uniquely bad for the Military. In the long term, the military could likely stand to do with less money, assuming the operational requirements are firmly defined and curtailed. There is plenty of evidence of wasteful spending . A consist budget through the appropriations process would be preferable, so the military could at least plan on having money. Sustainment contracts are made years in advance, with negotiations for maintenance availabilities starting months prior. Since they military couldn't depend on money being there, they couldn't plan for maintenance. Add in the increased operational tempo, and you have equipment going without maintenance doing more work. Eventually things will break. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16102",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8062/"
]
} |
16,151 | Trump recently signed a revised executive order to restrict travellers from specified countries for 90 days. What are some of the differences between the 2 executive orders ( 13769 and 13780 )? | There are a few major difference between the two executive orders. Basic information Both executive orders share the same name, but has different numbers. Initial Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (13769) - Issued and effective on Jan 27, 2017 Revised Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (13780) - Issued on Mar 6, 2017, effective on Mar 16, 2017 1. Iraq is now not included in the revised travel ban. As quoted from the fact sheet provided by the White House: On the basis of negotiations that have taken place between the Government of Iraq and the U.S. Department of State in the last month, Iraq will increase cooperation with the U.S. Government on the vetting of its citizens applying for a visa to travel to the United States . As a result of this increased information sharing, Iraqi citizens are not affected by the Executive Order . This is likely due to lobbying from the Iraqi government, as quoted from this CNN article : Iraq was removed from the revised travel ban executive order after intensive lobbying from the Iraqi government at the highest levels, according to a senior US official. That included a phone call between Trump and Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on February 10 and an in-person conversation between Abadi and Vice President Mike Pence in Munich on February 18 . (emphasis mine) 2. Visas previously issued will be valid. All visas that were issued before the effective date of the order will continue to be valid. Text of the executive order: (a) Scope. Subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (b) of this section and any waiver under subsection (c) of this section, the suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who: (i) are outside the United States on the effective date of this order; (ii) did not have a valid visa at 5:00 p.m., eastern standard time on January 27, 2017; and (iii) do not have a valid visa on the effective date of this order . (emphasis mine) WH FAQ: Thus any individual who had a valid visa either on January 27, 2017 (prior to 5:00 PM) or holds a valid visa on the effective date of the Executive Order is not barred from entry . (emphasis mine) 3. It will not go into effect immediately. The effective date of the order is 12:01am EDT on March 16. Technically, this means that citizens from the mentioned countries can continue to apply for visas for 10 days, though it is not mentioned if any applications will be approved. 4. Permanent residents are not included in the ban Lawful permanent residents or green-card holders will not be included in the ban. (b) Exceptions. The suspension of entry pursuant to section 2 of this order shall not apply to: (i) any lawful permanent resident of the United States; [ ... ] (emphasis mine) Useful links: White House FAQ White House Factsheet | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16151",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9638/"
]
} |
16,246 | First, the Photo ID Voting Law was put in place because states wished to decrease voting fraud, right? If not, please explain to me why it was implemented. I think I did well enough research but there's a good chance I'm wrong. Also, if the Photo ID voting law was in place for decreasing voter fraud, is it working? If it is, how well? Statistics please. I can't seem to find the answer I'm looking for. | the Photo ID Voting Law was put in place because states wished to decrease voting fraud, right? That is the stated reason, yes. However, in-person voter fraud (the only fraud that would be caught by voter id laws) is essentially non-existent. There were 18 confirmed cases between 2002 and 2012 in Texas. The 5th circuit appeals court found that the Texas law (SB14) specifically discriminates against minorities (see also here ). A federal court found that a similar law in North Carolina "target[s] African Americans with almost surgical precision". It also found: In particular, the court found that North Carolina lawmakers requested data on racial differences in voting behaviors in the state
[...] "With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans," the judges wrote. "The bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess." Similar accusations were made against the Texas bill: The Justice Department argued that “a wealth of evidence” suggests that lawmakers consciously discriminated The reasons given by the Justice Department are among others: the inevitable discriminatory impact of the law (Hispanics are 195%, Black people 305% more likely to not fulfill the strict id requirements than white people; while free ids may be provided, they are difficult to get, especially - and seemingly purposefully - for minorities) statements by lawmakers which said that they knew that the law will have a discriminatory impact the fact that the law was purposefully designed to not reduce that impact the fact that the law will have little or no impact on voter fraud (eg absentee voting - which is more susceptible to fraud and favored by white voters - was not changed) a history of voter discrimination and invalid voter fraud claims Some lawmakers have also directly stated that the goal of voter id laws is not to fight (practically non-existent) voter fraud, but to discriminate against minorities who are unlikely to vote for them: A handful of the GOP Senators were giddy about the ramifications and literally singled out the prospects of suppressing minority and college voters. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16246",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
16,278 | Donald Trump continues to smash fake news on rallies and speeches, meanwhile news (whether fake or not, you can decide yourself) are slamming the president with one story after another. I personally believe some of them were quite accurate and others were quickly debunked. But why can't the president enforce some laws for news agencies so every story that was proven to be misleading/wrong/fake/dis-informative has to be either retracted and apologized for (not by adding one correction line, but running a whole new correction story) or fined accordingly for disinformation of general public? The process has to be organized and everybody should have the right to issue a claim on the falsehood of the story and depending on the story the fine either goes to falsely accused people or government. I guess Trump will lose a huge political advantage (because you can't say that something is fake with this kind of law in place), but wouldn't it give him a bigger advantage since every fake story will have too big consequences to run it before fact checking it? His whole campaign was about politicians "All talk, no action", so why not do something about it? | Because of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis mine) This constitutional restriction makes it extremely difficult for the United States government to exert any control over the media. Besides, you can also spread false stories without lying. For example, take this story: An anonymous source just told us that Politics.SE moderator Philipp kicked his dog. That didn't say that I did do that. Just that an anonymous source said I did. Can you prove that no anonymous source said this? No? Then you cannot prove that this statement is false. Now you could prove that the information that I kicked a dog is false, so the news network is guilty of spreading a piece of false information. But what about this news: President Donald J. Trump just said that the murder rate in the United States is the highest in 47 years. It turns out Trump was wrong and it isn't . Is the news network guilty of spreading misinformation? It's the exact same situation. They reported on a statement being made, and that statement turned out to be false. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16278",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12907/"
]
} |
16,288 | The Job numbers have been growing steadily over the past couple of years. According to the latest jobs report, the number has increased by about a quarter of a million. So how much of this can be attributed to the new administration versus the results of policies over the previous 8 years under the Obama administration? Edit: For those who are wondering what numbers I'm going off of, the most recent jobs reports can be found here: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm | Probably Almost None Larry Bartels, a political scientist and expert electoral politics, published a book called Unequal Democracy which described how this works. Evaluating how much a President influences economic policy requires the usage of a lag factor . Basically, this factor accounts for how long it takes a President to meaningfully affect an economy. In a simple substantive sense this makes sense: just being President doesn't have much of an effect, you have to start passing policies and those policies take more time before they actually achieve anything. In his book, Dr. Bartels concludes that a 2-year lag term is generally most appropriate. So until about early 2019 Former President Obama's policies will have more to do with job growth/loss than President Trump's. Ecological Fallacy Of course, that is assuming that the Obama/Trump regime transition works the same as the others before it. Maybe it isn't. But that's for an individual to decide until enough time has passed to quantitatively start dis-tangling these different effects. To be honest, that likely won't happen for quite a while. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16288",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12908/"
]
} |
16,362 | This paper (check ANNEX) places United States on 37th position in terms of medical systems "efficiency" (I cannot tell the date when this study was made). Efficiency is computed using various factors such as health distribution, financing, responsiveness etc. This happens in one of the most developed countries in the world (8th place in Human Development Index ). This article tries to grasp the main differences between three developed countries regarding Health Care Systems: After examining the performance of the German system, we may question
whether it is the United States or Germany that has the better system.
Surveys of public opinion indicate that Germans by and large are
satisfied with their health care system (as opposed to the U.S. where
a large portion of the population thinks that system needs substantial
changes). However, this data seems rather old, since it talks about a great number of people without insurance: The U.S. health care system [...] glaring weakness is exemplified by
the fact that more than 42 million people are without health
insurance. This article tells us that the number Americans without health insurance just hit an all-time low: The percentage of Americans that do not have health insurance now sits
at 8.6%, the lowest on record, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). However, this article tells us the plan to the system that created the situation illustrate above. Question: Considering the US is a highly developed country, why is it so hard to achieve a system that is as efficient as in countries like France, Spain, Austria? Health systems within these countries seem to be stable for years, so they are a good reference. [EDIT] Although answers from the duplicate proposal may fit here, this question does not assume that US health system must be a national one in order to make it more "efficient". E.g.: This answer from Quora tells us that "Americans pay 30% to 300% more than Canadians for the identical drug made in New Jersey or California.". Theoretically, better regulation of drugs pricing might increase the cost efficiency of the health system, without changing other aspects. I am interested in why there seems to be such a difference in the "efficiency" of the health systems between countries having similar economical development. | Short answer, healthcare is viewed as a privileged commodity in the US, not a right. We have a "for profit" system, which, of course, means paying for it. Having "access" to healthcare simply means you can have it if you can afford it, like a luxury car. Until and unless universal healthcare is adopted in the US, healthcare availability will increase only in direct proportion to one's wealth/income. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16362",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
16,380 | Yesterday a news story broke about a stenographer on the US Senate floor fainting which prompted a brief recess while she was being medically attended to. Hearing this, I started to wonder why stenographers are still being employed for this position, working from the chamber floor, when we live in a day and age where technology could do a better job than having someone listening and hand-keying in what they are hearing. Furthermore, there are already numerous recording devices in place throughout the chamber floor of the Senate, House of Representatives and probably most other state and international governmental chambers. Specifically in the case of the US Senate, there are more than a few microphones and it also has multiple video feeds recording what's taking place. Modern technology can easily convert spoken audio to text, and even though the process isn't perfect it would probably be more accurate if it was automatically converted to text and then reviewed by a stenographer who reviews the recordings of each session against the computer-generated transcription. I understand the importance of keeping thorough records and minutes of governmental meetings but in a place like Capital Hill, it seems to me that a better, more accurate approach to keeping such a records would to implement effective technology. Is there a good reason why stenographers are still employed to hand-generate meeting transcripts? UPDATE I threw this question out with the very basic assumption that human-generated transcripts are not necessary when technology is already recording all of this material and auto-dictation software could certainly transcribe what's being said with moderate accuracy. After reading the comments below, I further recalled that stenographers actually DO NOT the record words they hear, in the typical sense. Instead, a stenographer is trained to phonetically type what they hear so that they can type at speeds of over 200 words per minute! I think this makes my question all the more relevant. It is true that speech recognition software is still imperfect but if the system is designed to dissect sounds, rather than words, the computer could quite possibly do a much better job at transcription that a human! This is because simple sounds, even coming at fast speeds would be easier to recognize than entire words. | I wasn't able to find an answer online, so I called the Office of the Clerk of the House to ask why they use stenographers instead of electronic recording devices. They gave me a list of reasons: To preserve the decorum of the House. House members like having a stenographer they can talk to about the record (to have something re-read, or to have their assistance locating materials in the record). The use of electronic devices is limited in Congress. This is due both to security concerns and infrastructure. With stenographers they have instant access to the record. With recording devices this may not be the case. Some of these reasons seem better than others, but there they are "from the horse's mouth". | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16380",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12990/"
]
} |
16,486 | Just today (March 21st 2017), the news came out around the web that Theresa May will trigger Article 50 (Brexit) on March 29th: The UK will begin official divorce proceedings with the European Union on March 29, prime minister Theresa May's spokesperson has announced. — Ars Technica However, it is my understanding that the Supreme Court asserted Theresa May was not allowed to do this (warning: there's an autoplaying video on that page), and that it was a matter for the entire parliament to decide. In a joint judgment of the majority, the Supreme Court holds that an Act of Parliament is required to authorise ministers to give Notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union What's going on? Did something occur in the meantime that reversed this decision? Is Theresa May attempting to get parliament's agreement on that date, or is something else going on? | @origimbo's answer is completely correct and accurate. I would just like to go into the details of the Supreme Court ruling and what the UK Parliament has done. Supreme Court ruling Basically, the Supreme Court has ruled that as seen in this article by The Telegraph . Supreme Court justices ruled, by a majority of eight to three, that Prime Minister Theresa May cannot lawfully bypass MPs and peers by using the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and start the two-year process of negotiating the UK's divorce from its EU partners. [ ... ] A one-line Bill is expected to be drawn up and debated in Parliament , and Mrs May will be hoping that if that is the case, the Bill can go through the Commons and the Lords swiftly before becoming law as an Act of Parliament. Actions taken by the government So, the government has complied and Prime Minister Theresa May published the Brexit bill on 26 January 2017 . Text of the Bill : 1 Power to notify withdrawal from the EU (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU. (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment. The bill was then passed in both Houses of Parliament unamended for enactment by royal assent, which was given on 16 March 2017 . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16486",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11738/"
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.