source_id
int64 1
4.64M
| question
stringlengths 0
28.4k
| response
stringlengths 0
28.8k
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|---|
16,551 | On Monday, the directors of the FBI and National Security Agency testified before the House Intelligence Committee. During the hearing, the House Intelligence Chairman asked Mike Rogers if votes tallies in key swing states were changed and Rogers confirmed that there's no evidence that any votes have been compromised in the election. House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes listed several key swing states -- Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio -- and asked Rogers if there was any evidence that vote tallies were changed. Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/comey-russia-hearing-trump-obama-what-learned/ I'm just curious as to what would happen if they found evidence that vote tallies were actually changed. Since the electoral college had already voted for the winner and the President had already inaugurated, what would happen since the Constitution doesn't state anything (as far as I recall)? | The actual vote for President is conducted by Presidential electors, not rank and file voters, and the validity of the electors is vested in Congress at the time that it receives the votes, not the states. A determination that vote tallies were tampered with resulting in the President improperly being elected would not change anything legally in terms of the President being the President, although it would radically undermine the legitimacy of the incumbent President. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16551",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9638/"
]
} |
16,606 | I seem to recall that Republicans voted to amend or repeal Obamacare dozens of times when Obama was president. It was a meme that they had so many better ideas about health care. They seemed to be confident and full of ideas, and had no problem delivering many of them to the President's desk. But, even though they have a friendlier President who was interested in health reform, now House Speaker Paul Ryan just cancelled a vote and conceded : We're going to be living with Obamacare for the forseeable future What happened? Why couldn't they pass a single one of their many, previously-successful proposals under a Republican president? | Why couldn't they pass a single one of their many, previously-successful proposals under a Republican president? The simple answer is that you're measuring "successful" by how many votes were garnered in Congress. This is a slippery measure. Voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act when the sitting President (Obama) is guaranteed to veto your repeal is merely a political gesture. It says, "I abdicate responsibility for any negative effects of Obamacare, because I voted to repeal it!" When the President (Trump) is actually likely to pass your repeal, then you can no longer just make political statements; you must consider the consequences more carefully. This answer purposely does not address the question of whether a repeal would be a good thing or a bad thing in terms of economic consequences. I only refer to the perceived consequences for political careers, as perceived by members of Congress. They may or may not even perceive them correctly; I am not judging that either. Put another way: Voting for a bill to repeal Obamacare that is subsequently approved by the President, puts Congress "on the hook" for the consequences of the repeal. Voting for a repeal that is vetoed takes Congress off the hook for any negative effects of the Affordable Care Act. One involves abdicating responsibility, the other involves assuming responsibility for potentially negative consequences. That's politics for you. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16606",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5046/"
]
} |
16,622 | In the U.S, there has not been much support for the Libertarian Party. Even though two of the leading candidates in the past presidential election have been considered to have too many faults to be elected, yet the majority of people don't choose third party, including the Libertarian Party. Why does it keep failing to gain more support in presidential elections? Does it come from the lack of recognition, or something else? | There are a number of possible reasons, and the answer is probably a combination of all of them. Politics is tribal. Many voters have "Republican" or "Democrat" as part of their personal identity, which they often inherited from their parents. "Libertarian", less so. This can change, but it tends to be generational. As @phoog pointed out in the comments, the first past the post electoral system makes a minority party look like a "wasted" vote. Most people will only vote for you if they think you have a chance of winning, or at least of influencing policy. Most people don't agree with the Libertarian platform. The small-statism puts off Democrats, and the liberalism on sexuality and drugs puts off Republicans. The Libertarians can't bring in big donations, because political donors mostly donate out of self interest, and the Libertarians can't offer anything in return because they have no realistic chance of getting into power. Hence they can't afford all the marketing stuff that the main parties do. Anyone with real political talent and ambition will join one of the two main parties because that is the only way to get elected, leaving the minority parties with a much higher proportion of cranks and monomaniacs. This reduces the pool of talent for party leaders and increases the likelihood that the selection process will promote ideological purity over actual talent. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16622",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6068/"
]
} |
16,651 | In a comment in an answer about a canceled vote : Other than belittling them on Twitter, what exactly do they have to fear from Trump's "wrath?" – Andy yesterday [3-26-17] What official and unofficial recourse does a president have against members of his party? And how effective are they? | Officially Trump himself can do little to penalize his opponents in Congress. If the President had such powers there would be nothing to stop him from using them against the opposition members (in this case the Democrats). Unofficially though the president, especially Trump, is a very influential man. He can sway public opinion 'just with his tweets'. If you're a congressman from a small congressional district that Trump won by a large margin, it would be pretty devastating if Trump tweeted 'Don't vote for that guy, he voted against my healthcare bill!'. Trump has already threatened to primary any congressmen who dissent from his bill. He is also a member of the GOP leadership and thus also has sway to say where campaign spending goes. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16651",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
16,654 | The news headlines regarding the American Health Care Act (formally, H.R.1628) suggest that by failing to be put to a vote, the bill is dead and we can move on with our lives. Is that actually true? From my understanding, the bill has been postponed until the Speaker decides to renew discussion. According to the actions taken on the bill, it has been: 03/24/2017-3:30pm
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule 19, further consideration of H.R. 1628 is postponed.
Action By: House of Representatives Clause 1(c) of rule 19 of the House Rules states (emphasis mine): (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), when the previous question is operating to adoption or passage of a measure pursuant to a special order of business, the Chair may postpone further consideration of such measure in the House to such time as may be designated by the Speaker . Does this mean that the bill may be re-activated so to speak, at any time, by the Speaker? Is this why they would withdraw the vote, rather than put the bill to a vote and risk it failing (which would kill it permanently)? | Officially Trump himself can do little to penalize his opponents in Congress. If the President had such powers there would be nothing to stop him from using them against the opposition members (in this case the Democrats). Unofficially though the president, especially Trump, is a very influential man. He can sway public opinion 'just with his tweets'. If you're a congressman from a small congressional district that Trump won by a large margin, it would be pretty devastating if Trump tweeted 'Don't vote for that guy, he voted against my healthcare bill!'. Trump has already threatened to primary any congressmen who dissent from his bill. He is also a member of the GOP leadership and thus also has sway to say where campaign spending goes. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16654",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13181/"
]
} |
16,664 | Shouldn't laws only stop one from harming other (socially, physically etc)? What is the purpose of other laws? For example, if an individual takes drugs without causing harm to others - what gives the government the right to stop him? | There are three major arguments which are often brought up to justify it when societies decide to punish people for victimless crimes : The values of the society in general are considered the victim of the crime (e.g. criminalization of certain sexual acts between consenting adults ) Society has the duty to protect individual citizens from harming themselves (e.g. prohibiting recreational drug use, mandating use of seatbelts) Society declares an act a crime because performing that act makes it more likely that the perpetrator will commit a more serious crime in the future (e.g. making gun ownership illegal to prevent homicides) Whether or not these arguments are valid is more of a philosophical discussion. In specific cases, there are also sometimes utilitarian arguments for or against certain policies against specific victimless crimes. To pick up the example of recreational drug use, one could argue about the economic damage caused by drug abuse and whether or not it justifies the restriction of liberties and the economical cost of enforcing them. But these only apply to specific examples and not to victimless crimes in general. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16664",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13190/"
]
} |
16,755 | Is there currently a country (or have there been such countries in the past) where the government is planning to introduce English as the official language, despite the fact that the local population is not Anglophone and has never been under Anglophone colonial rule? | Rwanda is such a country, having made the switch from French, the colonial language under Belgian rule, to English, in 2008. The country has also joined the Commonwealth of Nations, despite never having been subject to the British crown. I'm unaware of any country with current plans to follow in Rwanda's footsteps. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16755",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
16,831 | Trump seemed to be a big supporter of the current Syrian regime up until the recent chemical weapons attack. But why are chemical weapons such a big deal? What's the difference between killing 100 people with a bomb and doing the same with a chemical weapon? | Chemical weapons, like certain other kinds of weapons are banned not because of people killed by them, but because of what they do to the survivors. A summary from NPR: http://www.npr.org/2013/05/01/180348908/why-chemical-weapons-have-been-a-red-line-since-world-war-i It's a little counterintuitive that international law prefers weapons that kill cleanly over weapons that mutilate, but it's a widespread principle. It's also a motivation behind the ban on anti-personnel mines. (Remember that mere suspicion of possession of chemical weapons was considered grounds for invading Iraq!) | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16831",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
16,842 | Uber's main problem is that city governments are deeply connected with existing taxi structures - sometimes it's a matter of straight corruption, sometimes it's a matter of lobbying and existing relationships. But why can't Uber invest their money into convincing city governments into changing their regulations? Surely they have more cash to do so than individual taxi unions? | This is actually exactly what Uber does. The common Uber practice is for Uber to enter a city under circumstances that range from legal, to questionable, to clearly illegal. They will then rush in with lots of marketing and lobbying to sway both the general population and the local government and earn a foothold in the city. Once they have secured this they will push for local legislation if it is required. In generally they are very successful in practice as they operate in over 570 cities and are a multi-billion dollar company. For example in 2011 Uber received a cease and desist letter from its home town of San Francisco. However Uber remains legal to this day. This was in due to in large part its foothold in the populace, the work of its lobbyists and direct negotiations with the government. Obviously though that doesn't always work. The most famous case of failure here would be Prop 1 in Austin, Texas . Both Uber and Lyft spent over $5 million trying to legalize their practice there. Ultimately though they were rejected by voters and left the city. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16842",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
16,848 | What are the major arguments for why the state should not provide for the basic necessities of its people? I am thinking of things like water, food, and housing as "basic necessities". I think some people prefer a state not to provide these things, but I don't understand why. Without access to these necessities, some people will likely die. | The state cannot wave a magic wand and generate the water, food, and raw materials necessary for providing what you've defined as basic necessities. The state has to either pay for those resources, or force someone to give them to it. In a modern state, the state usually pays for goods by collecting taxes in the form of currency from its people. So, in order to provide its people with basic necessities, it must first take from them money to pay for the necessities. The basic argument against the government providing basic necessities for all, then, is that in order to do so they have to increase the tax burden on their population. Whether or not the state is justified in using its power to take taxes and spend them on basic necessities for all is a moral argument about what duty the people have to support others with their work, and whether the government should be the ones to execute that duty. Individualists would say that a person has no particular duty to help others in need, so the state should not force them to do so by proxy. There is also an argument that the same money that would be given to the state to provide necessities would be better spent on charities and other organizations dedicated to the goal, because they will better manage it, and because that money is being given freely rather than taxed. This does not even attempt to address the issue of what "basic necessity" actually means. Even the simplest necessity, water, needs to meet a certain standard of cleanliness and get sanitized before it can be considered potable, a standard which is wildly different depending on what area of the world you live in. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16848",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13311/"
]
} |
16,849 | I have seen this word "politology" twice recently on politics.SE [here and here] . What does it mean? Judging by the context it seems to be similar to political science. I googled it, but only got some fairly useless results: The mostly European/Eurasian field of Politology is different in orientation from American-defined Political Science, to which it is related. Wikipedia And: The branch of social science concerned with theory, description, analysis and prediction of political behavior, political systems and politics broadly-construed. Wiktionary This definition listed "political science" as a synonym. What is politology? Is it the same as political science or is there some different scope or nuance? | The state cannot wave a magic wand and generate the water, food, and raw materials necessary for providing what you've defined as basic necessities. The state has to either pay for those resources, or force someone to give them to it. In a modern state, the state usually pays for goods by collecting taxes in the form of currency from its people. So, in order to provide its people with basic necessities, it must first take from them money to pay for the necessities. The basic argument against the government providing basic necessities for all, then, is that in order to do so they have to increase the tax burden on their population. Whether or not the state is justified in using its power to take taxes and spend them on basic necessities for all is a moral argument about what duty the people have to support others with their work, and whether the government should be the ones to execute that duty. Individualists would say that a person has no particular duty to help others in need, so the state should not force them to do so by proxy. There is also an argument that the same money that would be given to the state to provide necessities would be better spent on charities and other organizations dedicated to the goal, because they will better manage it, and because that money is being given freely rather than taxed. This does not even attempt to address the issue of what "basic necessity" actually means. Even the simplest necessity, water, needs to meet a certain standard of cleanliness and get sanitized before it can be considered potable, a standard which is wildly different depending on what area of the world you live in. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16849",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/3169/"
]
} |
17,938 | According to this article , the US warned the Russians ahead of Syria missile strikes. It does not specify when exactly this occurred (a few minutes means nothing, 1-2 hours means that some troops/planes can be moved from the target area). This article tells us about the Russian Growler anti-missile defense system that theoretically could be used against the tomahawks: Russians have one of their self-proclaimed state of the art Growler
anti-missile defense systems on Latakia Airbase on the Syrian coast.
The Growler has reportedly been able to intercept targets at a range
of 250 miles and at heights of up to 90,000 feet. Question: what is the reason to make such a warning? From a military perspective, it does not make any sense. So, I suspect a political reason. | Russia was warned because there is a Russian military presence at the base. Airbus Defence & Space satellite imagery shows that there were four [Russian] Ka-52 Alligator and three Mi-28N Night Hunter helicopters deployed to Al-Shayrat Air Base, 30 km southeast of Homs city, on 31 March. Al-Shayrat has previously been used as a forward base for Russian Mi-24 and Mi-35 helicopters, four of which could be seen at the base on 31 March. (Source: Jane's Defence Weekly ) [T]he Americans told Moscow in advance about the strike, to avoid casualties among Russian military personnel stationed on the airbase (source: BBC ) Sources have told the Guardian that US intelligence officials believe Russian personnel were at al-Shayrat airbase when sarin was loaded on to a Syrian jet. They have not established whether the Russians knew it was happening. (source: The Guardian ) Killing Russian personnel could lead to a huge escalation. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/17938",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
17,951 | While browsing through a FiveThirtyEight's interactive article, Tracking Congress In The Age Of Trump , I came across the Senate vote on whether to trigger the 'nuclear option'. However, the question seems to be phrased in the opposite way than what I expected. Actual question that the Senate voted on: Whether to keep the Senate cloture requirement for Supreme Court nominees at 60 votes So, I'm just curious, why is the question not asked in this way : Whether to remove the Senate cloture requirement for Supreme Court nominees at 60 votes Is there any benefits to ask it in a way that Senators have to vote 'Nay' to trigger the 'nuclear option'? Or is it purely coincidental and doesn't have much significance? Also, this seems to be the only bill/nomination that Trump opposes due to the phrasing of the question: | Russia was warned because there is a Russian military presence at the base. Airbus Defence & Space satellite imagery shows that there were four [Russian] Ka-52 Alligator and three Mi-28N Night Hunter helicopters deployed to Al-Shayrat Air Base, 30 km southeast of Homs city, on 31 March. Al-Shayrat has previously been used as a forward base for Russian Mi-24 and Mi-35 helicopters, four of which could be seen at the base on 31 March. (Source: Jane's Defence Weekly ) [T]he Americans told Moscow in advance about the strike, to avoid casualties among Russian military personnel stationed on the airbase (source: BBC ) Sources have told the Guardian that US intelligence officials believe Russian personnel were at al-Shayrat airbase when sarin was loaded on to a Syrian jet. They have not established whether the Russians knew it was happening. (source: The Guardian ) Killing Russian personnel could lead to a huge escalation. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/17951",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9638/"
]
} |
17,997 | What were the motives stated for for the US attacking Syria or incentives to do that? It doesn't seem like there was any immediate threat from Syria to the US. (After all, they neither have ICBM's nor a blue water navy to be able to attack the US.) The targets of the Syrian attack were not US citizens. Is the only reason to proactively protect rebels from future attacks? | Part of the reason is purely domestic political (which, of course, a lot of foreign policy reasons boil down to, in many countries). In case of Trump and Assad, there were actually several independent domestic factors: President Trump's base is the same people who criticized President Obama over setting 'red line' for Assad over use of chemical weapons and not doing anything when he did use them (because they happen to think that gassing people with poison is Not a Good Thing, even if the gassed people are Muslims in Syria). As such, Trump - contrary to his own non-interventionist stance - was forced to act decisively lest he lose the support of his base as "just a next Obama who lets Assad gas his people with impunity". More importantly, this helps Trump with McCain type camp, foreign policy hawk wing of Republicans. This seems to bear fruit as per The Independent's "The Spoils of War: Trump Lavished With Media and Bipartisan Praise For Bombing Syria" article . OTOH, if he acted weak on Assad, he would give basis to the Democrats and left wing to attack him as "Russia's lapdog", since that would play right into left wing narrative of him being Russia's Manchurian candidate. As such, he was forced to act decisively to maintain appearance that he isn't just dancing to Putin's tune. Yes, the deep irony of Obama and Trump role reversal on both these points isn't lost on me :) There could be an argument made that Trump is also angling for general approval bump in a "rally around the flag" manner. We don't have good polling to see if that worked, yet, but FiveThirtyEight prediction is that it may not have a huge or permanent effect. The polling so far clearly support conclusion #1 and probably #3, but isn't clear on whether #2 worked in Trump's favor at all (supporting 538's #3) A HuffPost/YouGov survey finds 51 percent of Americans support the president's decision to order the airstrikes in retaliation for a chemical attack last week that killed civilians in northern Syrian. Thirty-two percent of Americans are opposed to the strikes and 17 percent are uncertain. Among Trump voters, 83 percent support the president's decision, while just 11 percent oppose it. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/17997",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/2747/"
]
} |
18,058 | By "power erosion" I refer to the phenomenon which usually affects a party in power: the trust gets lower towards the end of the legal mandate, thus reducing the chances of wining the power for the next mandate. In my native country, Romania, a much more fragile democracy (only 27 years after the fall of the Communism and a few years before WW2), I have seen several important political parties suffering from "power erosion": National Peasants' Party is almost 100 years old and failed to enter Parliament
(5% electoral threshold) for three times in a row (the latest) National Liberal Party, more than 100 years old and one the most notorious parties in country's history got only 20% of total votes at the last elections and some analysts argue that they might get lower in lack of solutions Other smaller parties disappeared from the Parliament after 2-3 mandates This article shows the evolution of public trust in Government: The public’s trust in the federal government continues to be at
historically low levels. Only 19% of Americans today say they can
trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about
always” (3%) or “most of the time” (16%). This article confirms the historical low trust level: Public trust of government is near its all-time low according to the
Pew Research Center, which finds a perfect storm of factors --
including a deep recession, high unemployment and polarized Congress
-- are driving distrust near an all-time high of 80%. At the same time, this table shows that the two main parties act and acted as a "political oligopoly" for many years. Question: considering the low levels of public trust, how comes that there is virtually no political alternative to the two parties? | There are probably a dozen correct answers to your question. The reasons for it contribute and pile on each other. I have no way of telling which reason is the most important. As you pointed out, American trust in our political leaders is at an all time low. As a sign of this the Republican party elected a President who is not a politician, Donald Trump. The Democratic party had a serious primary challenger who was not a Democrat, Bernie Sanders. Both of these people were able to gain political traction despite not being part of the party establishment, because American trust in our political parties is so low. Both of these candidates ran as a party candidate, despite having no real affiliation to that party or support from the party power structure. The alternative to this is to start a third party. President Theodore Roosevelt ran for a third reelection as a third party candidate in the 1912 presidential election . The election was very weird by American standards. 4 candidates got a large share of the vote. The winner, Woodrow Wilson, got 40% of the popular vote and won 81% of the electoral college. Taft was the third place candidate. Roosevelt and Taft agreed on a lot of issues. If one of them had dropped out of the race, the other would have had a much better chance of winning. The actual outcome was a landslide loss for their ideals. Roosevelt's new party fizzled out over the next few election cycles. This outcome is baked in to our electoral system. Although the political landscape has changed a lot in the past 100 years, the election system has not.
Simply put, the American election system strongly discourages the existence of a third party. You get more political traction if you work within an existing party to change the course of that party. If you start a third party, you may wind up sabotaging the main party that you are politically closest to. Wikipedia has a pretty decent write up of this. Duverger's law is also very relevant. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18058",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
18,164 | Turkey is currently doing a lot of posturing against the EU in general and its neighbor Greece in particular. Assuming Turkey were to attack Greece, is NATO obliged to invoke Article 5 (Collective defence)? Is this something defined within the NATO rules? | The NATO treaty is surprisingly short and readable as far as treaties go. Here's (most of) article 5: 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. Note that it doesn't make any distinction between NATO members and external parties. So if one member attacks another, the NATO members have the same obligations. Also note that the language doesn't exactly specify what has to happen, other than "assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking [..] such action as it deems necessary". So what exactly will happen? It's difficult to tell. It will depend on the exact situation, and speculating on dozens on scenarios is somewhat outside of the scope of the answer :-) As a footnote, I'd like to point out that the chances of Turkey actually invading Greece in the near-future are virtually non-existent. Barking is not the same as biting. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18164",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
18,195 | Yesterday, Prime Minister Theresa May announced that there would be a "Snap General Election", provided she gets backing of MPs, on 8th June. Last month, she formally triggered Article 50, and began the process of Britain leaving the European Union. I've been wondering since yesterday how this leaves the situation. If, say, the Labour Party won a majority vote in June, would they try to withdraw or backtrack on Article 50 (how they would do attempt it, or even if it's actually possible is another question). And what about other parties? Which party/parties would try to prevent it or reverse Article 50? I've done some research on the matter, but multiple sources seem to say different things. | The Liberal Democrats has publicly stated that they pledge to keep the UK in the EU . The Liberal Democrats will stand at the next general election on a platform of derailing Brexit and keeping Britain in the European Union , the party has announced. Leader Tim Farron said on Saturday night that he would be “clear and unequivocal” with voters that if elected it would set aside the referendum result and keep Britain in the EU . (emphasis mine) Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-result-lib-dems-remain-liberal-democrats-live-policy-stay-leave-a7103186.html However, keep in mind that this was stated by the party in June 2016. Currently, it's unclear if they will still reverse Brexit and keep Britain in the EU, though they have recently mentioned that they would stop a "Hard Brexit" and keep the UK in the EU single market. If you want to avoid a disastrous Hard Brexit. If you want to keep Britain in the Single Market. If you want a Britain that is open, tolerant and united, this is your chance. Source: Liberal Democrats's official site, http://www.libdems.org.uk/general-election-2017-tim-farron Below summarises the stand each party takes currently and parts are quoted from this article . Conservative "Britain is leaving the European Union and there can be no turning back. And as we look to the future, the Government has the right plan for negotiating our new relationship with Europe." -- Party Leader and Prime Minister Theresa May Does not support having a second referendum on the deal, but agree to let the Parliament vote on it. Labour "Britain is now leaving the European Union. And Britain can be better off after Brexit. But that’s far from inevitable and it certainly won’t happen with a government that stands by whilst wages and salaries are driven down, industry is hollowed out and public services are cut to the point of breakdown." -- Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn Similar to the stance taken by the Conservative Party, they believe that there should be not be another referendum on the deal, but that parliament should have a vote Scottish National Party Against leaving the EU as Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union Advocates for a second Scottish independence referendum Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) "Since the vote in Wales to leave the European Union, Plaid Cymru has prioritised the Welsh national interest. This has primarily meant defending and advancing our economic interests. The Welsh national interest does not correspond with the UK Government’s objectives, which means that Wales must have its own distinct voice in any negotiations" -- Party Leader Leanne Wood Believes that any deal must see Wales retain single market access Liberal Democrats "If you want to avoid a disastrous hard Brexit. If you want to keep Britain in the single market. If you want a Britain that is open, tolerant and united, this is your chance." -- Party Leader Tim Farron Believes that Britain’s vote to leave the EU can be reversed by a second referendum UKIP "We are in the midst of Brexit negotiations so this election will provide a perfect opportunity for the 52 per cent to vote for Ukip, the only party wholeheartedly committed to a clean, quick and efficient Brexit." -- Party Leader Paul Nutall Believes that the UK doesn't need Article 50 or any negotiations and that the UK should just leave straight away | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18195",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13540/"
]
} |
18,212 | While we are not currently at total automation, we are inching closer. An Oxford Study from 2013 indicates by 2033 upwards of 45% of our job force could be automated. This automation, causing a reduced need for work (thus wages) might cause (over time) capitalism to die. While there may be other possible reasons/ways capitalism may collapse, my main objective is to seek how capitalism could save itself from the reduction work/wages resulting from automation, assuming it's possible. Capitalism (goods are owned by private individuals/businesses). People/workers buy those goods. Business automate functions to compete resulting in a better bottom line with less labor. Less labor, less money to buy goods... and so on. Eventually reaching a tipping point of little/no people being able to buy said goods. If possible, how would capitalism prevent us from reaching that tipping point? Sources: The end of capitalism has begun The Future of Employment I would cite more, but limited to two links. | In 1800, more than 90% of everyone were farmers. Modernly in the United States, which is a net exporter of food, less than 5% of everyone are employed on farms. That's a reduction of 85%, much higher than 45%. Far from causing the end of capitalism, it launched the industrial age. In short, the capitalist answer is that there is always something else that people could be doing. Police departments could hire more police. Hospitals could hire more nurses. Automation leads to higher wages which leads to more consumption of other things: maid services; landscaping; construction; other things that don't have names because we haven't created them yet. When I was young, we had a refrigerator, oven, washer, dryer, phone, television, and several radios. We added a microwave, a computer, and a VCR. Now, that VCR is already obsolete and replaced by Blu Ray players and DVRs (or the internet). And people each have their own phone, computer, and television (which may also be the phone or computer). Capitalism can't tell what the future holds. But looking at the past, it can guess that the future holds something. Because our previous responses to automation has always been to find new and different things to do. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18212",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13477/"
]
} |
18,388 | I have read that Marine Le Pen has announced that she will momentarily step aside from her role as the leader of France's Front National (FN) political party. How does this have any relevance for the current presidential elections? It is mentioned in the article that she has based her decision for the move on her conviction that the president must bring together all of the French people but isn't that true anyway? | Adrien's answer has a lot of merits. It is indeed a marketing strategy, especially done at this moment (between the two rounds). It can also be said that this is a French tradition: the President is the President of all French people, designated to lead them all and serve their interest, and not only the supporters of the winning party. This comes from Charles de Gaulle, the founder of the Vth Republic and the current French constitution (established in 1958), that the French President should be above all parties . Here is an abstract of his Speech of Bayeux in June 1946, where he exposes his vision of the role of the President (translation is mine): C’est donc du chef de l’État, placé au-dessus des partis, élu par un collège qui englobe le Parlement, mais beaucoup plus large et composé de manière à faire de lui le président de l’Union française en même temps que celui de la République, que doit procéder le pouvoir exécutif. Translation : It is therefore the head of state, placed above the parties, elected by a college which encompasses the Parliament, but much broader and composed as to make him the President of the French Union, as well as the President of the Republic, from which must emanate the executive power. As previous recent examples, you can consider: Francois Mitterand, first secretary of the Socialist Party until January 24, 1981, before becoming President on May 14, 1981. Jacques Chirac was President of the RPR (Rassemblement pour la Republique, Rally for the Republic) until November 4,1994, before being elected President on May 7, 1995. Nicolas Sarkozy, president of UMP (Union pour la Majorite Presidentielle -Union for the Presidential Majority- the new name of the RPR from 2002) until May 14, 2007, before becoming President on May 16, 2007. It should be noted that, as member of the UMP/RPR, Chirac and Sarkozy considered themselves as de Gaulle's political heirs. On the other hand, Mitterand was a strong opponent of de Gaulle. As for Marine Le Pen, this is probably the right timing to do so. Observers of the politics in France often claim that French people "choose in the first round, and eliminate in the second round". After gathering enough supporters in the first round to stay in the competition, she needs now to convince the voters of the candidates that failed to vote for her. Her move is a way to give her a more universal stature. In practice, does it has a lot of effect? My personal opinion is that no one cares... | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18388",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7476/"
]
} |
18,549 | Switzerland has an interesting system where citizens may directly call for a legally binding referendum, ranging from a simple questions ("Should religious calls for prayers be prohibited?") to complex ones (constitutional changes). It seems that this system is quite rare in other countries - most either don't have federal referendums altogether, have extremely high barriers for organizing a referendum, or the referendums are not legally binding (United Kingdom). Why is this so? Isn't it great if citizens can directly vote on important issues? | The Problem of Democracy A lot of ink has been spilled about the central problem of democracy. On one hand, the reason to have a democracy is because people should have some input into their governance. On the other hand, people do stupid or terrible things with that power. The ancient Greeks (and later the Romans and Christian writers) considered democracy to be a failure of government. Plato ( Republic, Book 8 ) explains that a democracy is ruled by useless desires (such as misplaced survival instincts or the desire for personal wealth). In a democracy, these misguided people are allowed to rule, which results in chaos. This view was shared by Aristotle ( Politics, Book 3 part 8 ), who summarized the problem as: For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all. Outside the classics, this view exists up until today. In the 19th century, English philosopher J.S. Mill ( On Liberty, Chapter 1 ) attributed the problem to public opinion. Nearly all people use their naive opinion as a basis for political decision making. They base their support, voting, and other choices on there own personal opinion based on their personal experience - and they don't see a problem in this. Governments led this way do what their citizens want, rather than what is effective for obtaining what their citizens want. In addition to poor governance, Mill describes how democracies are driven to control people's personal lives - the "tyranny of the majority". So the problems common throughout history are that democracy is unstable, leads to poor governance, and easily becomes oppressive rather than free. In Practice Although I cited philosophers, in practice politicians have followed these kinds of ideas. The American founding fathers implemented many features to prevent citizens from having direct influence on the government : Legislation can only be created through legislators, not citizens. Senators (members of the upper chamber) are not to be selected by citizens, but by state legislators (this feature later removed). Federal judges are not elected, but appointed for life terms to prevent citizens from influencing them. The electoral college prevents citizens from directly choosing the President and Vice President. We could easily list many more, including examples from other countries. Founders of modern democracies are aware that popular rule is a problem to be avoided, rather than something to be embraced. Probably the fairest synopsis is that although the public should have input into the system, their input has to be moderated. Scientific Examples In political science, we often describe states with "too much" democracy as being populist . Populism is generally a danger to citizens' rights and liberties. Much of this theory was developed by William Riker , but it is still common in spatial voting theory, social choice theory, and other fields. Riker's basic concern was with electoral systems. How does the electoral system influence policy? Essentially, his conclusion is that elections restrain elected officials and policy, not empower them. Furthermore, the populist example (where citizens empower representatives to enact their will) is meaningless. Public support is unstable unless it is moderated by some kinds of institutions. Relying on public opinion directly for policy would lead to policies which are chaotic and inconsistent, as public opinion ebbs and flows. The result is that in these kinds of states, most public policy is wasteful: it changes too quickly or is quickly forgotton, never allowed to be useful. In the modern liberal democracy (where policy is somewhat insulated from public opinion) voting is less detailed: we either accept or reject a candidate. Voters punish candidates who create policies they don't like. In this situation, policy is more consistent, less prone to large fluctuations, and leads to better outcomes. I won't cite all of Riker's work, but this synopsis may be useful to anyone interested. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18549",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
18,620 | What is it about Obamacare that so many Americans are against such that it became an election pledge to repeal it? I could understand a candidate promising tax cuts and then after being elected scrapping Obamacare to pay for them. But this was not the case. It was a specific election promise to leave 10 million fellow Americans with no health coverage. As someone who comes from a country where universal health care is taken as granted (perhaps even taken too much for granted) I find it very difficult to understand why so many people would vote this way. And, it is not as if they voted for other policies and had to go along with this to get them because it was such an essential part of Trump's campaign. | These are a few reasons why each group is against Obamacare. With individuals — It requires nearly all Americans to get health insurance. Some do not think that the government should force citizens to buy health insurance and penalize them if they do not do so. There are taxes that Americans have to pay should they not buy health insurance. This is also one of the main reasons Americans are against Obamacare . Some are just against the fact that the government is ordering everyone to purchase coverage. — The premiums are hefty for those who can afford it. Americans who can afford to buy insurance directly from a provider are charged higher premiums so that they could assist in paying for the subsidies provided to those who buy their coverage from government-run marketplaces. Thus, some view Obamacare on a whole as a welfare scheme and the Medicaid expansion and subsidies for low- and moderate-income enrollees as an entitlement program that uses taxpayers' money to help people they consider undeserving. Furthermore, the premiums are set to rise by an average of 22% in 2017 . — People are angry with cancellations of their existing plans. Obamacare changed the rules of the types of public insurance that people can directly buy, thus some insurers canceled their old plans and charged higher premiums for the new plans to existing customers. Thus, this group of people doesn't really benefit from Obamacare, and thus they are upset about it . With insurers — Insurers have lost money. Some insurers lost money as the customers are sicker than they expected. Thus, the cost would have to be covered by better-off Americans. This will deter healthy, young Americans from signing up, increasing the prices of premiums. Partisanship — Republicans uniformly oppose it. Some oppose it simply because it's a Democratic healthcare plan and it was passed when both the House and the Senate were under Democratic control. Only one Senate Republican, Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) voted the bill out of the Finance Committee while another Republican in the House, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA 2nd District), voted for the initial version in 2009 . No Republicans voted for the amendment in 2010. The majority of the Republicans have been consistent in their opposition towards Obamacare. Survey Below is a graphic from Vox that shows the percentage of Americans who agrees with each statement listed: Articles worth checking out: Vox: Everything you need to know about Obamacare CNN Money: Why so many people hate Obamacare | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18620",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13929/"
]
} |
18,629 | The First Amendment to the US Constitution proclaims that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." Why is (or was) it necessary to specifically mention freedom of the press if free speech is already guaranteed? Wouldn't the former be covered under the latter, since the press would be simply exercising their right to free speech in exchange for money? | The Maryland Law Review published an article summarizing several sources of the U.S. freedom of the press ( Bogen, 1983 ). Parliamentary Privilege Prior to the American revolution, freedom of press and speech were only applied to members of Parliament as a part of their official duties. At this point the two rights were distinct: members of Parliament established the freedom to openly debate matters of policy and criticize the crown (freedom of speech), as well as the freedom to publish and circulate their own documents (such as laws) without the crown's interference. However, this only protected Parliament from the executive. It didn't protect citizens from any part of the government. In the colonies (as well as under the Articles of Confederation) American legislatures adopted this standard. Eventually, the Bill of Rights extended this to all Americans. Censorship & Libel One of the historical concerns behind the freedom of the press is the threat of censorship and libel. Many of these concerns were directly related to printing technology. In English history, the government had established printing monopolies and strict licensure rules, as well as censorship, to control what could be printed. Freedom the press is intended to prevent the American government from doing this. Additionally, Parliament had previously sued some printers for libel. Parliamentary privilege at one time prohibited anyone from publishing what was said in Parliament. When people started printing those records, Parliament responded with libel suits. Freedom of the press also addresses this concern, by making it clear that the press can publish the affairs of government. This isn't mentioned in the article, but some of the founding fathers were printing professionals and would have been familiar with some of these issues. Press and Speech The authors of the Constitution and First Amendment considered "publishing" and "the press" to be different things. However, the two concepts are related. Madison said: "The
people
shall
not
be
deprived
or
abridged
of
their
right
to
speak,
to
write,
or
to
publish
their
sentiments;
and
the
freedom
of
the
press,
as
one
of
the
great
bulwarks
of
liberty
shall
be
inviolable. In this sense, freedom of speech encompasses both the right of citizens to speak and publish their views. Freedom of the press is specifically the protection of the printing industry from undue government influence. Jefferson recommended using this language: The
people
shall
not
be
deprived
or
abridged
of
their
right
to
speak
or
to
write
or
otherwise
to
publish
any
thing
but
false
facts ... At this point, there is no mention of freedom for the press. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18629",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12151/"
]
} |
18,714 | Although Le Pen lost the election, she got a higher proportion in the second round than in the first round: 33% versus 21%. Given that all the other parties were either neutral or supported Macron, and she was branded an enemy of the republic, how did she gain an addition 12% or so? | Given that all the other parties were either neutral or supported Macron, and was branded an enemy of the republic, how did she gain an addition 12% or so? Voters aren't beholden to parties. It's quite possible that 12% of the voters preferred François Fillon, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, etc. in the first round but preferred Marine Le Pen to Emmanuel Macron in the second round. That's not so much. It would also be possible that some people voted in the first round but not in the second. That of course is the problem with being neutral. It's like splitting your vote in two, half for Macron and half for Le Pen. Looking at the actual numbers , it seems more the first than the second. Overall about five million fewer people voted in the second round than the first. But Le Pen still received about two and a half million more votes in the second round than the first. So roughly 8% of first round voters switched to Le Pen. The number went up more due to the smaller base. This suggests to me that they should have used ranked voting (IRV, Condorcet, even Range or Approval) in the first round, as many voters don't seem engaged with their actual choices. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18714",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/270/"
]
} |
18,719 | I've heard some say that Marine Le Pen was like Trump and by voting against her the French have put the brakes on Trump-like populism. What are the political similarities between Le Pen and Trump? | There are major differences between the French and American political culture which reflect into their respective political agendas. I am not sure their minds or political programs fully fall into the definition of "ideologies". I sum it up like this. Similarities: Protectionism Isolationism Identity politics Anti-immigration Anti-NATO Extreme vetting or more controls on Muslims; Note that there were significant attempts by Le Pen supporters like Dieudonné and Alain Soral to appeal to French Muslim voters based on anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli rhetoric (Jean Marie Le Pen is Dieudonné's third child godfather). Anti-gay wedding; although the n°2 official of the national front is openly gay. This sometimes leads to tensions in a party with a homophobic past. Relationship with media Differences: Marine Le Pen sometimes goes socialist (35h work week, partial nationalisation of banks, ...), sometimes full liberal (stop the family subsidies, ...) while Trump looks like a fully convinced capitalist (within the borders, as protectionism goes). Note that it wasn't always like this, the old national front was much more liberal economically. To some extent it still is when it campaigns in south eastern France, unlike when it campaigns in northern France, as shown here an article in french that discusses the differences between the socialist north and capitalist south of national front voters . No gun passion in France, hence no gun passion in Le Pen French people love their universal health care system. Hence Marine le Pen wants to keep it; but not for foreigners. Unlike Mr Trump's attitude towards health care Marine Le Pen wants a kind of "national preference" for public employment, public housing, ... (this has been part of the national front's program for a long time, and part of why it is anti-constitutional, it goes against equality before the law). I never heard anything like this from Mr Trump. Sources: National Front's program , Mr Trump's positions | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18719",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12367/"
]
} |
18,745 | As far as I understand, public holidays were originally a way of letting workers rest during the year, as well as celebrating major religious events. Nowadays workers are usually entitled to a few weeks of vacation (not to mention the 8 hour work days and rest during weekends), so having a public holiday is a lot less important for them. Likewise religion plays a much smaller role and Christmas is usually equivalent to a shopping festival in Western countries. So what's the purpose of keeping the public holidays? Are there countries which plan to reduce their number or remove them completely? | Holidays allow people to consolidate gathering plans. In the US, two important holidays are Memorial Day and Labor Day. These, more or less, mark the start and end of summer. As such, travel and vacations are often planned around these dates. Holidays represent times when children will be free as well. Most major countries have compulsory school attendance. Holidays represent government closure, and thus schools are closed as well. Since the parents tend to be off, they can plan things for those days. Holidays are popular. No politician will touch an established holiday, especially since they are typically paid days off for many workers. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18745",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
18,751 | As an example, Barack Obama is quite young (15 years younger than his successor) and was extremely popular. So why doesn't he run for a seat in the Senate? This would theoretically allow him to become the Speaker of the Senate and therefore the third most important man in the US government, unrestricted by any term limits. Even as an ordinary Senator he would have considerable clout and would be able to confront Donald Trump face-to-face on a monthly basis. Likewise George W. Bush, Clinton and George Bush Senior never attempted to participate in public elections after leaving their position, despite being far from senile. What is the reason behind this? | There's several reasons Courtesy to a colleague - Generally speaking, former Presidents generally refrain from current political commentary . This tends to extend to politics in general, lest they step on their successor's toes in any way Bush, however, in his limited public appearances has stayed mute about his successor, maintaining a custom among former presidents that dates back decades. While not all presidents have adhered to the practice, it has created a mostly amicable brotherhood of former presidents.
"George W. Bush is a traditionalist," CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen said. "I think he holds to an old-fashioned standard that the presidency is one of the world's greatest fraternities and its members don't criticize each other."
After leaving the White House, Bush made it clear that he was finished with the public stage. Although he has been more public since his presidential library opened in April, Bush has maintained that he will not criticize Obama. Political machines don't last forever. Clinton, for instance, was unable to rebuild the Obama coalition . Local politics differ greatly from national politics. Bradley Wilson linked this article in a comment , which advocates Obama running for his local House seat, while trying to "nationalize" the 2018 midterms. While I think he could easily win the seat, it's important to note that he failed to successfully campaign for a Democratic House after 2008. It's not clear that he could succeed now, where he has not in the last 4 elections. You would have to sway a LOT of districts to make this happen. If a former President did win a local political office, would he be happy in a far lesser role? It's harder to go backwards from the top | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18751",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
18,790 | What were the reasons behind Donald Trump deciding to fire FBI Director James Comey? If anything, Trump should have been happy with him, since he held that press conference about re-opening the Hillary investigation shortly before the election. | The reason given publicly by members of the Trump administration was that Comey was dismissed due to the way he handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein stated in a letter that: The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement . At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders. (emphasis mine) There's a question regarding this and the answers there goes into detail on what was wrong with how he handled the investigation. However, the timing of the dismissal raised some questions among Democratic and even some Republicans lawmakers. According to an article by CNN : And in a sign of possible trouble for the administration, Republican Sen. Richard Burr, who is leading a Senate intelligence committee probe into alleged Russian influence on the election, expressed disquiet at the firing of Comey, which he described as a "loss for the bureau and the nation. "I am troubled by the timing and reasoning of Director Comey's termination . I have found Director Comey to be a public servant of the highest order, and his dismissal further confuses an already difficult investigation by the Committee," Burr said. (emphasis mine) And an article by The Atlantic : Comey’s dismissal is likely to raise questions about whether the White House is interfering in that investigation . In a letter from Trump informing Comey of his firing, the president suggested Comey had privately assured Trump he was not being scrutinized. “While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgement of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau,” Trump said. (emphasis mine) So, what questions does it raise? Due to the timing, some have suggested that the White House has interfered with the investigation into a possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign due to the timing of the firing. However, this is just a likely reason that's reported. Comey recently confirmed during a testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that the FBI is investigating whether members of President Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election. As President Trump repeatedly denounced the Russia story as “fake news.”, he might have fired Comey so that he could appoint a new FBI director to lead the investigation. Second, Comey and his department have been investigating ties between the Russian government and the Trump camp for months. The investigation seems serious. Trump has now fired a man who was a major potential threat to his presidency . (emphasis mine) Source: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-did-trump-fire-comey/ Most recently, he denounced the investigation in a tweet less than 24 hours before dismissing Comey: Another reason this reason might be possible is that Trump briefly mentioned the investigation in his letter to Comey and seemingly tried to hint that it wasn't the factor: While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau. However, the Trump administration has denied it : The FBI has been investigating allegations that people involved with Trump's presidential campaign had undisclosed ties to Russia. But during a brief meeting with NBC News in the Oval Office on Tuesday evening, Trump said the Russia probe wasn't a factor in his decision . (emphasis mine) Some articles worth checking out: CNN - Trump fires FBI director James Comey CNN - Trump's letter firing FBI Director James Comey BBC - Did President Trump fire James Comey as part of a cover-up? Vox - Trump’s dubious, disturbing firing of FBI Director James Comey, explained Vox - Read: Trump’s bizarre letter telling FBI Director James Comey he's fired NBC - Timeline: What Led to FBI Director James Comey’s Firing | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18790",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7017/"
]
} |
18,804 | In many areas of the US people choose the place to live based on the quality of local schools. In districts where schools are geographically segregated, many parents even resolve to various scams in an attempt to get their child into the "right" school. However it seems unclear to me why bad schools exist in the first place - assuming that the government wants to make sure that all students receive a good education, shouldn't they replace personnel in schools which are considered "bad"? Or do bad schools only exist because the local population is under-educated in the first place and therefore no amount of schooling can help their children become better? | Only about half of the funding for public schools in the United States comes from the federal and state budget. The other half comes from local property taxes. The property tax income varies a lot between rich and poor districts. That means schools in poor districts have vastly less funding available than those in rich districts. The yearly budget per student a public school has available can range between below $6k and over $30k. With private schools, the inequality is usually even worse. It's a market, so they cost as much as parents are able and willing to pay. Poorer regions simply don't have a market for premium education, so even if your income is far above the regional average, you might have trouble finding a quality private school nearby. Less funding results in less numerous and less qualified teachers, worse equipment and an overall worse school environment. While it is hard to prove a causal relationship between low school funding and academic performance, parents are of course interested in giving their children the best possible environment to grow up in, which results in some trying everything they can to get their children into a better funded school district. The reason why this system is structured that way is mostly historic. Schools were always considered a municipal responsibility. Changing the system would mean putting more financial burden onto the state governments and federal government which in turn would require an increase of state-level and federal-level taxes. This is generally unpopular among those US citizens who favor a "small state" and privatized over centralized solutions. Sources: A Research Synthesis / Unequal School Funding in the United States by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem by National Public Radio (has lots of pretty pictures with graphs and maps) | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18804",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
18,806 | The answers to this question - What reasons may Donald Trump have had for firing FBI Director James Comey? - appear to suggest that there is widespread certainty that the sacking was politically motivated. And furthermore that the political motivation was to avoid or reduce the impact of potentially serious corruption charges. This is not the first time Trump's behaviour has set off these alarm bells. Similar accusations were levelled against his sackings of Sally Yates and Preet Bharara. As an outside observer (I live in Europe), it seems quite astonishing and appalling that he has been able to do this without political opposition. Especially when media condemnation and certainty that he has ulterior motives seems almost universal. Part of the job of the US constitution and legislature would seem to be to offer checks and balances against the actions of the President. Why has no-one yet used any of these powers to try and rein in or remove the President? What steps would there have to be, now, in order to begin such a process? | No one has attempted to "rein in or remove the President" because he has not been found to have done anything illegal. These "politically motivated sackings" were not of elected officials or even people appointed by congress. They were political appointees in the executive branch, which the President is in charge of. Obama replaced George W. Bush appointees with his own. Before that, George W. Bush appointed replacements for Clinton appointees and before that Clinton appointed replacements for George H. W. Bush's people. That's how the system works. Political appointments tend to not last long after the appointing politician is gone. Trump won the election and, as Obama said, elections have consequences. The duly elected President of the United States would have trouble fulfilling the demands of their voters if they were constantly having the department heads loyal to the predecessor who appointed them. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18806",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/4824/"
]
} |
18,871 | As far as I understand, politicians on the Left side of the spectrum generally support increased welfare, strong regulation for workers rights, high minimum wage, etc. At the same time, many Left-wing politicians support increased immigration - both through the visa system and through asylum claims. However it seems obvious that increased immigration (especially when it's not highly qualified) reduces the median wage for the poorest workers, makes it easier for employers to abuse their employees, increases the number of people on welfare, etc. So how are the two views reconciled? I could understand a Right-wing politician supporting increased immigration since it directly benefits the local companies, but it seems completely self-contradicting for the Left-wing point of view. | I don't think that there is anything to reconcile. As you said, left-wing politicians support strong regulation for workers rights and a high minimum wage. The poorest workers make minimum wage, so immigration should not reduce their wage. In the same manner, strong regulations should prevent employers from abusing workers. But even if we assume that this is not how it works out in practice, the positions make sense. The motivation for protecting workers and immigrants is the same: The state must protect the most vulnerable people, those who cannot protect themselves. If that is the goal, abandoning one group in favor of the other doesn't make a lot of sense; the left generally does not have an us-vs-them ideology regarding heritage/ethnicity/race, but one based on class instead. Instead, policies should be implemented that can protect both at the same time (higher minimum wage, better enforcement of minimum wage, more protections - and better enforcement of existing protections - for workers, etc). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18871",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
18,883 | Germany currently spends 20 billion euros per year on helping its 2 million refugees . This means that a single refugee costs the German budget around 10 thousand euros, excluding additional contributions by private organizations and charities. At the same time some estimates show that helping a refugee abroad is 10 times less expensive. Likewise it's a lot less controversial and has been done for many decades. So what are the political arguments for spending money on helping refugees inside the country's borders? Wouldn't we be able to help a lot more people by focusing on being cost-effective? | I don't think that there is anything to reconcile. As you said, left-wing politicians support strong regulation for workers rights and a high minimum wage. The poorest workers make minimum wage, so immigration should not reduce their wage. In the same manner, strong regulations should prevent employers from abusing workers. But even if we assume that this is not how it works out in practice, the positions make sense. The motivation for protecting workers and immigrants is the same: The state must protect the most vulnerable people, those who cannot protect themselves. If that is the goal, abandoning one group in favor of the other doesn't make a lot of sense; the left generally does not have an us-vs-them ideology regarding heritage/ethnicity/race, but one based on class instead. Instead, policies should be implemented that can protect both at the same time (higher minimum wage, better enforcement of minimum wage, more protections - and better enforcement of existing protections - for workers, etc). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18883",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
18,970 | Somaliland is an unrecognized state in Northern Somalia. While Somalia is plagued with violence and terrorism, Somaliland has remained peaceful and separated from the war. Somaliland has its own currency, bureaucracy, elected government, military, and police force. If Somalia is ranked 1 in the 2016 Fragile State Index, why don't countries recognize Somaliland as an independent country? | Here's a partial answer: First, the government of Somalia doesn't recognize Somaliland. Any recognition of Somaliland would come over the objections of Somalia. The global community is more reluctant to legitimize such unilateral separatism. The Somaliland separatists historically had minimal economic/military clout or foreign alliances, so no one has gone to bat for them. Second, Somaliland does not have well defined borders. De facto Somaliland is primarily territory of the Dir and Isaaq clans, but Somaliland claims all of the former British Somaliland, including territory of the Darod clan. The de facto border between Somalia and Somaliland is not stable. Recognizing Somaliland would raise the stakes of the border dispute, potentially renewing clashes. And how would one know what border to recognize without a bilateral process between Somalia and Somaliland? The longer Somaliland retains its de facto independence, the stronger its claim to de jure independence will become. If it increases ties with players such as the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Ethiopia, that may further strengthen its hand. The UAE in particular is establishing a military base and port concession in exchange for perhaps $1bn in investment. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/18970",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7578/"
]
} |
19,053 | Current postboxes in the United Kingdom look like this: Adrian Cable / Hazelwood Hall Postbox / CC BY-SA 2.0 With the "ER II". What will any new ones have on them when Charles is king - will it be CR III? | Royal Cypher The "E II R" is known as the royal cypher . In this case, it stands for "Elizabeth II, Regina". The design of the royal cypher is not fixed; it doesn't have to take the form of Initial — Regnal Number — Title . They can be a bit more elaborate, such as that of Duke Charles III of Brabant, which used three intertwined Cs (while he was the second Charles to become King of Spain, he was the third Charles to become Duke of Brabant). King Charles III A few hours after the death of Queen Elizabeth, on the 8th of September 2022, the new King of England has announced that his regnal name will be King Charles III , which puts an end to the speculation (preserved below). On the 27th of September 2022, his royal cypher was revealed : an intertwined C and R underneath a Tudor crown, with a Roman numeral III in the eye of the R. Linus Boman offers an in-depth explanation of the design of King Charles III's royal cypher on YouTube. Also note that current post boxes are not altered; the royal cypher of the current monarch is used on new mail boxes produced during their reign. Over 70 years after his death, some mail boxes bearing King George's royal cypher are still in use today . What follows is part of my original answer, which was a bit of speculation about the regnal name of the then Prince Charles, prior to the death of Queen Elizabeth. King Charles We do not know what regnal name Prince Charles will take when he is crowned King of England. There has been some speculation that, due to negative connotations with the name "King Charles", he might not want to take that name. Previous Kings Charles All Kings Charles so far have been Stuarts, while Charles, Prince of Wales, is a Windsor. King Charles I King Charles I of England was beheaded for high treason. King Charles II King Charles II of England was known for his mistresses and bastard children. About him it was written Restless he rolls from whore to whore A merry monarch, scandalous and poor. King Charles III Bonnie Prince Charlie , had he succeeded in claiming the throne, would've been King Charles III. Other Options Prince Charles was christened Charles Philip Arthur George, so he has other names to choose from. King George Prince Charles has denied planning to reign as King George VII: Officially the Prince's office said yesterday: "No decision has been made and it will be made at the time." "Charles denies planning to reign as King George" , The Guardian , 27 December 2005 Which does not state that he will not do so, but just that he is not planning on doing so. King Arthur Choosing to become King Arthur would probably be seen as having illusions of grandeur, due to the legacy of that name. King Philip King Philip II was a Spanish king who became King of England through his marriage with Queen Mary I. After her death, he waged war on England, a planned invasion failing after much of the Spanish fleet was destroyed. Again a name with some negative connotations. Conclusion I think it's safe to assume that of all options, choosing to be King Arthur would be received worst. So it could become "C III R" for King Charles III, "P I R" or simply "P R" for King Phillip (I) or "G VII R" for King George VII. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19053",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10795/"
]
} |
19,090 | Suppose Congress successfully impeaches and removes a sitting President of the USA. Can this person still run for a second term? Assuming the usual rules about term limits are observed, of course. | Answer: During an impeachment trial, the Senate can "disqualify" an officeholder from holding any public office again, but that is a separate vote from their "removal". Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution says (emphasis mine): Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. At first glace I assumed this meant that someone who is removed by impeachment is therefore automatically disqualified from holding office, but case law shows this is not how that has been interpreted : Since ratification, four troublesome questions have arisen under this clause. The first was whether the Senate may impose the sanctions of removal and disqualification separately and, if so, how. The Senate claims that it may impose these sanctions by separate votes: (1) removal, involving the ouster of an official from the office he occupies at the time of his impeachment trial, and (2) disqualification barring the person from ever serving again in the federal government. In 1862 and 1913, the Senate took separate votes to remove and disqualify judges West Humphreys and Robert Archbald, respectively. For each judge, a supermajority first voted to convict followed by a simple majority vote to disqualify. The Senate defended this practice on the ground that the clause mentioning disqualification does not specify the requisite vote for its imposition, although Article II, Section 4, mentions removal as following conviction. The Senate in 1862 and 1913 considered that the supermajority requirement was designed as a safeguard against removal that, once satisfied, did not extend to the separate imposition of disqualification. So the Senate has the power to vote separately on removal (by supermajority) and/or disqualification (by simple majority), but the one does not imply the other. You can see this in the current US Senate overview of the impeachment process (PDF): The Senate may subsequently vote on whether the impeached official shall be disqualified from again holding an office of public trust under the United States. If this option is pursued, a simple majority vote is required. So yes, an impeached and removed President could still run for office, unless he or she was also explicitly disqualified by the Senate (or was ineligible for other reasons, like term limit exclusions). EDIT : To be clear, you can be removed without being disqualified , but you can't be disqualified without being convicted/removed . According to the official PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE : Following the Vote on Each Article, the Presiding Officer Pronounces the Decision. Once the Judgment of the Senate has Been Pronounced on the Articles of Impeachment, the Trial Might Progress in Two Ways. If the Respondent Was Found Not Guilty on All Charges, the Verdict of Acquittal Was Announced and the Senate Sitting as a Court of Impeachment Adjourned Sine Die. If the Respondent Was Found Guilty of Any of the Charges, the Judgment of Removal and Possible Disqualification From Ever Holding an Office of Trust or Profit Under the United States Was Presented | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19090",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8912/"
]
} |
19,134 | I do not know how the Pope's activity is covered in Western media, but local media in my country (Romania) covers all the important meetings of the Pope. Many of these meetings are with important political figures, as briefly caught in the images from here . The title of this article clearly suggests that "Pope Francis is a man of peace - and immense political power ": the papacy has always enjoyed diplomatic clout. In the early 1800s,
the Pope pressured heads of state to suppress the slave trade. In the
Eighties, Pope John Paul II united Christians in opposition to
communism. And Benedict XVI made overtures to the Eastern Orthodox –
something that his intellectualism and love of liturgy made him
especially well placed to do. However, present times are quite different, as irreligion seems greater than ever in most of the developed countries (also see atheism demographics in Europe ). Also, this article suggests a clear decline of Catholicism in the United States. Question: How does the Pope influence today's politics in countries where State and Church seem to be clearly separated? My assumption is that there is a clear political influence, since many politicians are "queuing for an audience" with the Pope. | Let's assume that the United States is one of the countries where church and state are separated. Politicians can still care about papal opinion because some of their voters do. According to Wikipedia , roughly 20-25% of Americans are Catholic. That's more than are black or Hispanic, and those groups have political influence. In the US, five or six of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic ( Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic but attends an Episcopalian church with his wife). Presumably they care somewhat about the pope's opinion on areas like abortion. During the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish, visited the Pope in Vatican City. The campaign said : The Sanders campaign denied any political motivation behind the trip, saying the conference was an opportunity for the senator to spread his message of economic inequality. Up to you if you want to believe him or not. US politicians also meet with the Dalai Lama, and hardly anyone in the US is Buddhist. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19134",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
19,177 | Why do groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda continue use terrorism attacks, which only do temporary physical damage. It seems to have the primary effect of aggravating huge military entities such as N.A.T.O or the U.S. The swift downfall of Al Qaeda's power after the 9/11 attacks is an example of such a thing happening, and considering that ISIS started as a small branch of Al Qaeda they have seen this kind of thing happen firsthand. So I am confused why they continue to do the same thing instead of any alternative ways to achieve their goals? | The stated goal of ISIS is to eliminate "the grey area". Today there is a sizeable minority of Muslims living in western society. ISIS wants to show that it's not possible for Muslims to live in the western world. Their method is to perform terrorist attacks in the hope it will cause a backlash against Muslims living in the western world. ISIS states this very clearly : “the time had come for another event to … bring division to the world and destroy the grey zone” and : “the world today is divided into two camps”: that of kufr, or unbelief, and that of their own warped interpretation of Islam. In between these lies the “grey zone”, inhabited by those who call themselves Muslims yet fail to join Daesh.” | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19177",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/14450/"
]
} |
19,306 | According to this article wealthy Americans' vote turnout is significantly higher than that of lower income ones: Socio-economic status: Wealthy Americans vote at much higher rates
than those of lower socio-economic status. During the 2008
presidential election, only 41% of eligible voters making less than
$15,000 a year voted, compared to 78% of those making $150,000 a year
or more. Studies have shown that this difference in turnout affects
public policy: politicians are more likely to respond to the desires
of their wealthy constituents than of their poorer constituents, in
part because more of their wealthy constituents vote. This is somewhat counter-intuitive, as one should expect people with lower incomes to vote against the current administration. E.g. In France's latest elections, in the first round ( source ): "The polls last week ago showed that around 24% of people didn't want
to vote, and the week before it was 30%. "So people have decided to vote at the last minute, young people and
low-paid workers who are angry about unemployment and wanted to vote
against the incumbent. Traditionally the older people and middle
class vote anyway." Question: Why don't poor people vote in the United States? | They are several reasons at play as to why poor people don't vote. Voter ID laws and registering to vote The Government Accountability Office found in this report , that in most state it costs between $5 - $60 to obtain a vote ID, alternate ID like a passport or driving license also cost money to obtain, and people who don't travel or don't drive may not have needed either before. This may not seem like a huge amount of money but when you're on the breadline every dollar counts. Also another factor is that poorer people are more likely to move home than wealthier people, and that moving home can jeopardize voter eligibility as you have another layer of red tape and paperwork before you can get to the polling station, an MIT study estimated that 1.2 million votes were lost in 2012 due to registration problems alone. Elections are held on working days A lot of poor people are paid by the hour, and if the election is being held on a working day (like in America) you simply can't afford to take the day off. In the 2014 US mid-term elections, a report commissioned by the Pew Research Centre found that 35% of people who didn't vote did so because of scheduling conflicts with work/school. Countries where voting is held on a week-end or public holiday like Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, and Italy typically have higher voter turnouts . A sub-category of this is long lines : in 2016, people sometimes had to wait for hours to cast their ballot. For someone who is losing money for every minute they spend in a line to cast their ballot, having to spend several hours is unappealing at best. Education, education and education (and apathy) Poor people don't have the time to read thousands of pages of news/policies and they don't spend their luncheon reading the Economist. As your article says, policies tend to be tailored towards wealthier constituents, so poorer voters may have difficulty understanding some of the more complex or technical terms used in the political discourse. Another article which claims this is here ; poor people don't feel represented so they don't vote. A very blatant example of this was the 2016 Presidential Election where both the major candidates of political parties (Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump) were multi-millionaires/billionaires who had extremely good educations (Yale/Wharton School of Business); these education institutions are often inaccessible to the poor . In fact, almost every single president of the US has at least been some form of millionaire . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19306",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
19,356 | There is a finite amount of fossil fuels in the earth, and yet the U.S. is still highly dependent on them. At some point, things will have to change. Renewable energy technologies are getting more efficient each year, yet there seems to be little political will to make the transition. What are the current barriers stopping the U.S. from adopting green energy on a wide scale? | Your premises are wrong. The US is seriously expanding its green energy, now even faster than expanding its fossil fuels use. The US has large explored resources of coal and oil. Hawaii plans to be off oil by 2045. Why isn't it going faster? --Money. Oil is cheap. Even in places like Hawaii where you have to ship oil thousands of miles and you have lots of sun, wind and waves it is still about even cost per watt. at some point, things will have to change But we are not at that point yet. As Churchill said You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. We are perhaps the best placed to ignore changes, and the least inclined to look more than a couple elections into the future as a whole. Oil will get more expensive as we use up the easy to get stuff, green energy will get cheaper as we get more clever and build more production facilities; the money argument will eventually switch sides, and then we'll see how good the lobbyists really are. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19356",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/13937/"
]
} |
19,380 | Donald Trump has been a pretty strong advocate for repealing and undoing rules & regulations aiming to cut climate change, however recently the New York Times and Axios have reported that Trump is planning to pull out from the Paris agreement (which does reflect on his campaign statements). My question is why , or what political capital or such would he gain by withdrawing from it. Considering it (not including obvious pollution effects): Does not create more jobs [1] Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is for staying in the Paris accord [2] , along with other big businesses [3] so I don't see how private interests could be a major influence. | Culture. In the US denial of climate science has been turned into part of the 'culture wars'. As such it is part of identity of many on the political right to decry global warming as a left-wing invention made up for political ends. Any effect on reality, jobs or international relations is secondary. And it seems that unlike many things, like repealing the ACA, Trump can actually do this; he can withdraw from Paris, keeping his voters happy and without any immediate negative effects; it's totemic more than anything. Edit.. Since people seem (wrongly) to think that there is any more to it than this, I can first present the actual agreement . In which there is no enforcement mechanism or sanctions. You just pick a NDC (nationally determined contributions) and promise to stick to it; if you don't there are no consequences, apart from those to the environment. It follows that any costs associated with the agreement are voluntary, and any argument based on costs is void. No one got hauled over the coals (sic.) for missing Kyoto targets, no one will be strung up for missing Paris targets. Is global warming now firmly part of the culture wars? Yes, it is - this is independent of any actual reality. Political affiliation is embarrassingly strongly tied to acceptance of the science. So Trump is just following this. And we British have our own. James Delingpole , Matt Ridley , and Christopher Monkton all have their contributions. So yes, this is all happening for cultural reasons, and dumping the Paris agreement has no real-world consequences - if it had such consequences it would have had to get through the US senate. I'd also note that this argument would be exactly the same if all the science behind global warming was concocted - that simply doesn't come in to it. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19380",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8278/"
]
} |
19,497 | I hear this term "white privilege" when something major happens like a school shooting, police shooting, or even during sentence hearings involving people of different ethnicity. What does "White Privilege" mean? A good answer should include examples of it either occuring or not occurring in modern day society | White privilege is an academic concept that has recently been brought into the mainstream discourse by social media campaigns and movements like Black Lives Matter . It's basically a theory that white people in western countries have more societal privileges than people of other ethnicities who come from the same political, social and economic class . It's largely used as a byword for systematic or institutional racism in a country. Since the debate is largely in the US I will be using data from the US to back up my points. In America: Police are more likely to use deadly force (read kill) a young black male over a young white male. And black people are disproportionately killed during police raids as a percentage of population. Data suggests that you are much more likely to be stopped and searched if you are non-white. You are much more likely to be arrested and charged for the possession of marijuana in the US if you are Black (despite the fact that the percentage of marijuana users are roughly the same between blacks and whites). Minorities are disproportionately represented among the prison population in the US; although it must be noted they disproportionately commit some types of crime, it would be naive to say there is no racism within the criminal justice system. According to a University of Michigan study : “Black defendants face significantly more severe charges than whites even after controlling for criminal behavior (arrest offense, multiple-defendant case structure, and criminal history), observed defendant characteristics (e.g., age, education), defense counsel type, district, county economic characteristics, and crime rates. Unexplained racial disparities exist across the charge-severity distribution, especially at the high end. The most striking disparities are found in the use of charges that carry non-zero statutory minimum sentences.” Once convicted you are more likely to stay longer in prison if you are black. You are likely to graduate college with less debt if you are white. The net worth of the average black household in the United States is $6,314, compared with $110,500 for the average white household, according to 2011 census data, and generally white people are richer than black people . Census data further suggests that the median income for a minority is significantly lower than for a white person. Data suggests the media are more likely to report on your child going missing if the child is white. Data suggests you are more likely to face housing discrimination as a person of colour over a white person. I could provide a lot more examples but I'm simply proving data exists which show that a white person born in the USA is statistically likely to go to have less debt, be richer, get a better education, get a better house, not get stopped and searched as often or go to jail as often as a person of colour. This concept of racial inequality which inadvertently benefits whites often is referred to as "White Privilege". NB: This does not mean you are guaranteed to be more privileged as a white, it's just more probable. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19497",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9016/"
]
} |
19,538 | Cressida Dick, the Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, said on the radio this morning that she continued to be opposed to ordinary police officers in London being routinely armed. Britain is one of only three major western countries that do not routinely arm their police officers. The others are Norway and Ireland. The policy is to continue with small, elite, and mobile armed squads that are on sudden call and can deal with a terrorist incident. There is no doubt that on Saturday night this proved very effective, with all three terrorists dead within eight minutes of the first 999 call being made, and only one innocent, non-fatal casualty from police action. But what are the arguments for and against the arming of every constable? Could the wielders of knives or explosive backpacks be stopped more quickly by a single officer? Would this lead to more innocent parties being killed, or could it save lives? What are the professional arguments for and against? | A lot of the opposition to arming the London Police seems to be due to the Police themselves. The BBC explored this in 2012 A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty, despite almost half saying their lives had been "in serious jeopardy" during the previous three years. And Arming the force would, say opponents, undermine the principle of policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state, as in other countries. Great Britain is a bit of a unique case, where you have a culture that has been built from the ground up to deal with crime without being routinely armed. The other countries that do this kind of thing are also smaller populations with lower crime as well Iceland New Zealand Ireland Norway Many Pacific island-nations So, if it works well there, why not disarm all police? The best answer there is that Police are the first step in government authority. If you have a society that largely respects the police, the odds of an authority breakdown are low. The citizens backing the police can help keep other citizens in line. Note that most of the unarmed police list is in Europe, where crimes are lower, due in part to society (NZ is highly influenced by the European society effect as well). But in many countries, the government is weaker, or mistrust of the police is higher. Guns, for better or worse, establish authority quickly. Brazil, which had a police strike, had to send in the Army to re-establish order . Armed police who draw their guns in limited circumstances are clearly preferably to the military holding weapons of war openly in the streets (terrorist responses notwithstanding). That having been said, it's hard to say if arming British police would have helped in any of the recent terroist attacks. You have to send response at the point you're notified and then get that response to the scene of the incident. Yes, it could have helped the stabbed police officer , but faced with a gang of attackers unafraid to die, even that might not have stopped them. It would not have saved anyone who died from being struck by the vehicle. Arming police is not a panacea, or the U.S. would have no terrorist attacks. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19538",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6837/"
]
} |
19,554 | According to Wikipedia : Under Article 59 (1) of the Basic Law (German Constitution), the President represents the Federal Republic of Germany in matters of international law, concludes treaties with foreign states on its behalf and accredits diplomats. So it seems to me that (at least on paper) it's the German President who should be signing international treaties such as the Paris Climate Accords. But in reality few people outside of Germany know the President's name and many don't even realize the position exists. So what are the de facto powers of the German President and why is he involved so little in international matters? | The reason is largely historical, the office of President was first introduced in the Weimar Republic of Germany, with significant political powers according to its constitution. Article 25 of the Weimar Constitution the President had the power to unilaterally dissolve the Reichstag Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution the President had the power to unilaterally suspend civil liberties. Article 53 of the Weimar Constitution the President had the power to unilaterally appoint and dismiss the Chancellor and the cabinet. Basically this created a very unstable sort of government and the Reichstag was constantly getting dismissed and re-elected. Indeed there were 8 elections between 1919 and 1932. Also the cabinet of the Weimar government kept getting appointed and dismissed as the President would appoint them, but they didn't enjoy support in the Reichstag who would promptly dismiss them. This led to the President Hindenburg appointing a bunch of cabinets who outright didn't enjoy support in the Reichstag and were referred to as "presidential" cabinets. However it all changed in 1933 when Adolf Hitler rose to power, to some degree through abusing powers invested in the office of the President such as with the Reichstag Fire Decree . I quote a translated copy of the text below: On the basis of Article 48 (Weimar Constitution) paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the German Reich, the following is ordered in defense against Communist state-endangering acts of violence: Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom habeas corpus, freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed. As you can see this was clearly an abuse of the power of the president and it along with the Enabling Act led to the downfall of democracy in Germany and the rise of Hitler as chancellor. In 1934 Hitler combined the offices of President and Chancellor to become the Fuhrer So in 1949 when the West German Basic Law (or constitution) was written, the authors intentionally reduced the powers of the president and made him indirectly elected i.e elected by the Federal Convention (which basically consists of the entirety of the Bundestag and some other regional leaders) instead of the public. Now some dude who is indirectly voted in by the parliament isn't going to garner international headlines unless he is particularly controversial, since in a democracy he isn't that powerful. Also because the public don't need to go to a polling booth to tick his name they simply don't know or don't care. Nowadays the de facto powers largely lie in the fact that the President of Germany has considerable leeway in exercising his duties, which are quoted as follows : Proposing the Chancellor to the Bundestag. Appointing and dismissing the Chancellor and Federal Ministers Dissolving the Bundestag under certain circumstances Convening the Bundestag according to article 39 of the constitution Signing and promulgating laws Appointing and dismissing federal judges, federal civil servants, and commissioned and non-commissioned officers of the Armed Forces Exercising the power to pardon individual offenders on behalf of the Federation Awarding honors on behalf of the Federation Representing Germany at home and abroad For example he could independently make representations and political suggestions which would not be allowed to some other heads of state whose role is more ceremonial e.g Her Majesty the Queen . The President of Germany also possesses some reserve powers if all goes to pot as outlined by Article 81 of Basic Law Legislative emergency (1)
If, in the circumstances described in Article 68, the Bundestag is not dissolved, the Federal President, at the request of the Federal Government and with the consent of the Bundesrat, may declare a state of legislative emergency with respect to a bill, if the Bundestag rejects the bill although the Federal Government has declared it to be urgent. The same shall apply if a bill has been rejected although the Federal Chancellor had combined it with a motion under Article 68. (2)
If, after a state of legislative emergency has been declared, the Bundestag again rejects the bill or adopts it in a version the Federal Government declares unacceptable, the bill shall be deemed to have become law to the extent that it receives the consent of the Bundesrat. The same shall apply if the Bundestag does not pass the bill within four weeks after it is reintroduced. (3)
During the term of office of a Federal Chancellor, any other bill rejected by the Bundestag may become law in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article within a period of six months after the first declaration of a state of legislative emergency. After the expiration of this period, no further declaration of a state of legislative emergency may be made during the term of office of the same Federal Chancellor. (4)
This Basic Law may neither be amended nor abrogated nor suspended in whole or in part by a law enacted pursuant to paragraph (2) of this Article. TLDR: President is basically ceremonial, but has some leeway in exercise of duties. You haven't heard of him because the public don't elect him and his powers were cut because Hitler used them to become a dictator. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19554",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
19,591 | I've always been baffled at the Council of Europe fight against the death sentence: on the one hand you have the rights of the prisoner and how a death sentence is too harsh for any crime. On the other hand it's considered to be perfectly okay to send someone to prison for life or for 20+ years, which is often a lifetime sentence anyway. If I were a convicted criminal, I'm pretty sure I'd rather just get the death penalty rather than living in miserable conditions for the rest of my life. Even more so in countries where the penitentiary system is not known for its great facilities. So what's the rationale for attempting to eradicate the death sentence? Isn't it practically speaking a much more humane punishment than a long prison sentence? Edit : while the current answers are certainly interesting, I would like to know the official rationale by the Council of Europe, not what the US or other government entities think about it. | There are actually several points that make it different: The European charter of fundamental rights states in its very first article that human dignity is inviolable. (Just like the German Basic Law btw.) This automatically forbids any action of the state taking the life of any human being as a form of sanction. Also people on death row usually wait for several years before the sentence is carried out and that is deemed as violating human dignity as well. If you sit there years waiting for your execution that is deemed as damaging as torture. The criminal system can and does fail. There are several well documented cases of people being treated unjustly by the system and even falsely convicted for crimes they did not commit. You can release someone whom you imprisoned for life. You can't release someone you executed, you can just bury him. Because even lifetime imprisonment is not what it says. The ECJ (European Court of Justice) ruled that it is unconstitutional to imprison a person for life without the chance of parole. You might be imprisoned for a very long time, but there always has to be the chance of parole. The idea behind the justice system in Europe is not only to punish an offender. It is twofold: first it should protect the public from a dangerous individual and, second, it should try to educate that individual to return to a lawful life - and you can't re-educate a dead person. You can however grant him parole if he improves while imprisoned. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19591",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
19,666 | After yesterday's ISIS attacks in Tehran, U.S. president Trump said in reference to Iran, "states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote." Prima facie, the claim that Iran sponsors ISIS (if that's what Trump's statement means) sounds implausible. Not only did ISIS chose to attack Iran, but they also consider Shia Islam, Iran's state religion, as heresy. Iran also fights ISIS in Syria. Is there any evidence or plausible reasoning that supports the claim that Iran 'sponsors' ISIS? Alternatively, is there another reading of Trump's statement that makes more sense? | "Terrorist" as already suggested is thrown around a lot nowadays. One party may consider a group to be terrorist while some other party might view them as revolutionaries or Freedom fighters. However, one undeniable fact, despite the ambiguity in the definition of terrorism , is that if you support factions who deliberately attack civilians, you support terrorism. Iran, since the Islamic revolution, has followed the policy of ideological export. The main emphasis is on exporting the revolution to other states of the region and destabilize their existing regimes. Almost always it follows Proxy-Insurgency style covert warfare rather than outright conventional war. Support and Creation of Proxies abroad For Iranian backed proxies nowadays, we see: Anti-Government Elements in Bahrain who mostly happen to follow Shia Islam,Iran's official sect. Houthi rebels in Yemen. Shia Militias in Iraq The Houthis and Dissidents of Bahrain are considered terrorists by their respective regimes. The Shia outfits were considered the same by Saddam regime of Iraq until US toppled Saddam and installed Shia government in Iraq. Now the Iraqi militias are right hand of Iraqi government in fight against ISIS but have been accused of similar terrorist acts by their Sunni countrymen and foreign powers . Direct Support for Terrorist organizations For directly supported foreign organizations who are considered terrorists by one or more countries in the world, we see: Hezbollah Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jihad These organizations are classified as terrorist factions by several countries in the world. It must be noted however that many people (Especially from perspective of Iranian hardliners who whole-heartedly support their government's support of such organizations) in the region consider them to be freedom fighters and consider their attacks on civilians, a reaction to Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians (Which may not be deliberate but are portrayed as deliberate by people who have a vested interest in that kind of portrayal. That doesn't mean that all such attacks are collateral damage). It must however also be noted that these organizations have deliberately struck several times civilians of nations they consider their enemies. Direct Actions Finally we hit the last spectrum, which is direct state-level covert operations/black-ops/terrorist-operations, choose your word. Iranian Revolutionary Guard is responsible for operations abroad and many of them have caused them to be labelled a terrorist organization by US. For example: IRG was accused of carrying out an attack on Israeli ambassadors in India by Indian Police. Two IRG officials were arrested in Kenya , plotting an attack on Western and Israeli targets. US considers Iran to be responsible for 1998 US Embassy Bombings , USS Cole Bombing , Ties between Iran and Al-qaeda , supporting Afghan Taliban Germany considers Iranian intelligence to be directly involved in Mykonos Hotel murders. Argentinian Authorities believe Iranian government carried out 1994 Jewish center bombing in the country through their proxy Hezbollah.(Shout out to Colin Zwanziger for pointing it out). Curious Case of ISIS ISIS isn't the only terrorist organization in the world. The sole reason that Iran is fighting against them is because they consider Shias to be heretic and fit to be killed as they have shown . Iran is also protecting the so-called Shia chain (Iran~Iraq~Syria~Lebanon) by fighting against ISIS. ISIS isn't some magical monster, fighting against whom instantly absolves you of all your other crimes. It doesn't absolve the Kurdish militias of their attacks on civilians, it doesn't absolve the Shia militias of their attacks on civilians, it doesn't absolve the Russians or the West of their attacks on civilians. ISIS is a monster, no doubts about that but it is merely one of the many monsters on world stage. If ISIS was only anti-West, anti-Israel, make no mistake, Iran would have been on their side. (Similarly if ISIS was just anti-Assad and anti-Shia, US would have been on their side and would have called them moderate rebels.) And since US is supporting FSA and other factions, It's easy to say that for Iranians, US is also terrorist. Same goes for every country in the world. The organization that fits your agenda is not a terrorist while the organization that is against you is a terrorist. In conclusion, No Iran doesn't sponsor or support ISIS. Iran has actually been leading the real fight against ISIS from the beginning. Nevertheless, Yes, Iran supports terrorism. But so does every other major country in the world in one way or another. Mr. Trump's statement just highlights the dilemma he was in given the attack on Iranian parliament. He was expected to convey sympathy to the Iranian people but at the same time, he had to point out Iranian backing of other terrorist organizations to please the anti-Iran lobby at home and allies in mid-East. He deftly managed that with his statement, with enormous help from Washington's PR and diplomatic corps no doubt. He showed sympathy but also bashed Iran which he recently called responsible for exporting sectarianism and violence in Mid-East during his last visit to KSA. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19666",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5787/"
]
} |
19,673 | To vote at the UK general election you must be (among other things): be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen be resident at an address in the UK (or a UK citizen living abroad who has
been registered to vote in the UK in the last 15 years) [..] The following cannot vote in a UK Parliament election: EU citizens (other than UK, Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) resident
in the UK anyone other than British, Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens [..] The list of commonwealth countries is quite long, and includes Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and many more. I understand the historical ties between these countries, but most of them been independent for quite a while; for example Ireland since 1916, India since 1947, etc. What is the rationale for still allowing citizens from these countries to vote, while not extending suffrage to other countries (such as citizens from EU countries, the United States, etc.)? | "Terrorist" as already suggested is thrown around a lot nowadays. One party may consider a group to be terrorist while some other party might view them as revolutionaries or Freedom fighters. However, one undeniable fact, despite the ambiguity in the definition of terrorism , is that if you support factions who deliberately attack civilians, you support terrorism. Iran, since the Islamic revolution, has followed the policy of ideological export. The main emphasis is on exporting the revolution to other states of the region and destabilize their existing regimes. Almost always it follows Proxy-Insurgency style covert warfare rather than outright conventional war. Support and Creation of Proxies abroad For Iranian backed proxies nowadays, we see: Anti-Government Elements in Bahrain who mostly happen to follow Shia Islam,Iran's official sect. Houthi rebels in Yemen. Shia Militias in Iraq The Houthis and Dissidents of Bahrain are considered terrorists by their respective regimes. The Shia outfits were considered the same by Saddam regime of Iraq until US toppled Saddam and installed Shia government in Iraq. Now the Iraqi militias are right hand of Iraqi government in fight against ISIS but have been accused of similar terrorist acts by their Sunni countrymen and foreign powers . Direct Support for Terrorist organizations For directly supported foreign organizations who are considered terrorists by one or more countries in the world, we see: Hezbollah Hamas Palestinian Islamic Jihad These organizations are classified as terrorist factions by several countries in the world. It must be noted however that many people (Especially from perspective of Iranian hardliners who whole-heartedly support their government's support of such organizations) in the region consider them to be freedom fighters and consider their attacks on civilians, a reaction to Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians (Which may not be deliberate but are portrayed as deliberate by people who have a vested interest in that kind of portrayal. That doesn't mean that all such attacks are collateral damage). It must however also be noted that these organizations have deliberately struck several times civilians of nations they consider their enemies. Direct Actions Finally we hit the last spectrum, which is direct state-level covert operations/black-ops/terrorist-operations, choose your word. Iranian Revolutionary Guard is responsible for operations abroad and many of them have caused them to be labelled a terrorist organization by US. For example: IRG was accused of carrying out an attack on Israeli ambassadors in India by Indian Police. Two IRG officials were arrested in Kenya , plotting an attack on Western and Israeli targets. US considers Iran to be responsible for 1998 US Embassy Bombings , USS Cole Bombing , Ties between Iran and Al-qaeda , supporting Afghan Taliban Germany considers Iranian intelligence to be directly involved in Mykonos Hotel murders. Argentinian Authorities believe Iranian government carried out 1994 Jewish center bombing in the country through their proxy Hezbollah.(Shout out to Colin Zwanziger for pointing it out). Curious Case of ISIS ISIS isn't the only terrorist organization in the world. The sole reason that Iran is fighting against them is because they consider Shias to be heretic and fit to be killed as they have shown . Iran is also protecting the so-called Shia chain (Iran~Iraq~Syria~Lebanon) by fighting against ISIS. ISIS isn't some magical monster, fighting against whom instantly absolves you of all your other crimes. It doesn't absolve the Kurdish militias of their attacks on civilians, it doesn't absolve the Shia militias of their attacks on civilians, it doesn't absolve the Russians or the West of their attacks on civilians. ISIS is a monster, no doubts about that but it is merely one of the many monsters on world stage. If ISIS was only anti-West, anti-Israel, make no mistake, Iran would have been on their side. (Similarly if ISIS was just anti-Assad and anti-Shia, US would have been on their side and would have called them moderate rebels.) And since US is supporting FSA and other factions, It's easy to say that for Iranians, US is also terrorist. Same goes for every country in the world. The organization that fits your agenda is not a terrorist while the organization that is against you is a terrorist. In conclusion, No Iran doesn't sponsor or support ISIS. Iran has actually been leading the real fight against ISIS from the beginning. Nevertheless, Yes, Iran supports terrorism. But so does every other major country in the world in one way or another. Mr. Trump's statement just highlights the dilemma he was in given the attack on Iranian parliament. He was expected to convey sympathy to the Iranian people but at the same time, he had to point out Iranian backing of other terrorist organizations to please the anti-Iran lobby at home and allies in mid-East. He deftly managed that with his statement, with enormous help from Washington's PR and diplomatic corps no doubt. He showed sympathy but also bashed Iran which he recently called responsible for exporting sectarianism and violence in Mid-East during his last visit to KSA. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19673",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
19,751 | In the British general election of 2017, "Lord Buckethead" stood in the constituency of Maidenhead. Buckethead is a pseudonym. I understand Buckethead's identity is not public knowledge: Buckethead, a self-described “intergalactic space lord” whose real name is unknown, won 249 votes in the Berkshire contest. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/09/lord-buckethead-elmo-and-mr-fish-finger-a-very-british-election How / why is it permitted to stand for election under a pseudonym? Usually you see the candidate's full name and address on the ballot paper. How have the electoral authorities confirmed Buckethead is eligible to stand for office? Do they know Buckethead's name in confidence? | If you watch the actual result in Maidenhead, you will see that particular candidate's vote is announced by the acting Returning Officer as "Jonathan, David; known as Lord Buckethead; 249." Similarly he will have given home address details, and any necessary identification procedures when he or his agent submitted his nomination papers as a validly nominated candidate . If you look at the linked .pdf file, you will see a candidate is allowed to give a commonly used name. The general reason for this system is demonstrated by the next candidate announced in the video, "Hill, Anthony Charles; known as Tony Hill". The Returning Officer has a duty to disallow misleading, or offensive common names, so a candidate in Maidenhead couldn't run as, for example , 'Terry May', unless that was his real name. However Lord Buckethead isn't likely to be offensive, nor is it going to mislead anyone. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19751",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5544/"
]
} |
19,860 | I was confused by the logic of the Puerto Rico boycott of the statehood referendum. While it's true that 97% voted for statehood, that represents a paltry 23% of the residents in total From the NY Times With nearly all of the precincts reporting, 97 percent of the ballots cast were in favor of statehood, a landslide critics said indicated that only statehood supporters had turned out to the polls. Opposition parties who prefer independence or remaining a territory boycotted the special election, which they considered rigged in favor of statehood. On an island where voter participation often hovers around 80 percent, just 23 percent of registered voters cast ballots. Voting stations accustomed to long lines were virtually empty on Sunday. Many pro-state forces are reporting only the winning percentage and not the turnout. It seems to be counterintuitive. What was the thinking here? | The main point of objection by the boycotters is that the referendum essentially does not accomplish anything . It is not legally binding and would not significantly advance the movement for statehood or independence; therefore, opponents feel that boycotting it emphasizes its ineffectiveness. Part of the rationale for the opposition parties is that Congress is unlikely to take any action . For one thing, Congress ignored the previous referendum , where over 61% of Puerto Ricans who voted called for statehood. Many ballots were left blank , and government officials claimed that this meant that the results could not be trusted. Nevertheless, many Puerto Ricans do not believe Congress would do any better this time, in part because the referendum is non-binding . The boycotters assume, largely, that Congress won't do anything. It would still seem that voting couldn't do any harm. However, many oppose the very idea of the referendum, either on principle or practicality: The referendum cost somewhere in the range of $8 to $11 million dollars - a symbolically sizable cost for an island mired deep in debt. Opponents argue that the money should have been used for something else. The fact that the referendum is not binding has led some party members to call it "inconsequential"; they feel that voting would give the referendum authority. Boycotts had been called for many weeks in advance. Originally, there were only two options on the ballot : independence or statehood. The Department of Justice ordered a third option that better suited many Puerto Ricans, namely, continuing their current state. The DOJ did not have time to fully review the final options. The ballot itself uses the word "decolonization" - another indication, some say, that the referendum is not consistent with the attitude of Puerto Ricans toward their current status. The above meant that many Puerto Ricans saw the referendum as biased towards statehood, especially given that the governor, known as strongly pro-statehood, was the figure pushing it. The New York Times article you cited noted that referendums in the past have often been criticized as biased towards one side. Therefore, boycotting let the opposition parties challenge the process. In a nutshell, boycotters see the referendum as an ineffective, financially-draining, and biased move on the part of those supporting statehood. By boycotting it and being able to claim that the result simply doesn't represent the opinions of all Puerto Ricans, they can criticize it and try to nullify the result. It's unclear if they would have had a chance to gain more than 50% of the vote between the other two options; previous polls showed that the option for statehood had only around %52 of the vote. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19860",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12027/"
]
} |
19,861 | There have been plenty of instances in recent history across Europe where parties want to ban covering of the face: Norway Proposes Ban on Face Covering in Schools, Kindergartens Ukip pledge to ban the burqa in party manifesto - [UK General Election] French Ban on face covering German parliament votes in favour of partial burqa ban European Parliament’s biggest political group calls for EU-wide ban on Islamic face veils to name a few... What reasons could parties have to be proposing face covering bans? | There are three interlocking reasons: Face coverings are perceived as an affront to feminism/women's liberation/etc... The fact that women (but not men) are forced to cover their face, is pretty much as naked patriarchal/opposed to feminism as you can get (heck, even most anti-third-wave-feminists agree that it's a valid reason to pro-feminism-protest and is clear inequality). If you recall, in 1960s, feminists vehemently protested bras , and in 1990s, some protested nipple pasties . There are worldwide " slut walks ", whose main philosophy is feminism-based opposition to the idea that a woman should dress less provocatively to avoid sexual assault. Muslim face covering flies/spits in the face of all that (no pun intended). It's viewed by Westerners [1] that face coverings are symptomatic and/or symbolic of conservative/radical Islam's treatment of women. [1] - I won't discuss whether this view is correct or not - the complexities of Arab/Middle-Eastern/Central-Asian tribalism and ethnography as intertwined with Islam are way outside the scope of the question. It's enough for explaining the OP's question that the view is held, widely. For those who generally oppose radical Islam, this is viewed as both practical pushback (If you ban face coverings, conservative/radical Muslims wouldn't want to live in that society); as well as symbolic pushback (inasmuch as, per above point, face coverings are seen by many as a symbol of Islam). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19861",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11264/"
]
} |
19,870 | Catalonia is a region of Spain where a big part of the population wants to be independent from Spain and form its own nation. If that happens, at the beginning, Catalonia as a nation will be out of the EU. Could Catalonia quickly join the EU after that? Can Catalonia alone fulfil the requirements? Is there a minimum period of time Catalonia must wait? Or does it depend only on economical and political factors? | To be allowed to apply to join the EU, Catalonia as an independent nation must be able to demonstrate they meet the Copenhagen Criteria which are defined as follows Political criteria: Stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities; Economic criteria: A functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces; Judicial criteria: Administrative and institutional capacity to effectively implement the acquis and ability to take on the obligations of membership Once they demonstrate they can meet all these criteria they enter into a series of negotiations with the European Union, which can take several years judging by past standards . It is worth noting this may be pushed back several years, as the EU are currently strung up with some of the "most complicated negotiations of all time" , regarding Britain imminent withdrawal from the EU . Once they have finished negotiations with the EU and demonstrate they can comply with all the EU's standards and rules They must then seek The consent of the EU institutions and EU member states The consent of their citizens – as expressed through approval in their national parliament or by referendum It is worth noting that for Catalonia to be allowed to become a member state they must have unanimous consent from all EU member states. Traditionally EU member states would be unlikely to support such a move if it risks antagonising Spain, who may also potentially block such a move. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19870",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/14981/"
]
} |
19,906 | One question, addressed to US President Donald Trump, was related to the Visa Waiver Program . Specifically, if he and Romanian President had discussed the Visa Waiver Program for Romanians . Inclusion of Romania within Visa Waiver Program is a subject that is usually included whenever the President or a diplomat has a high level meeting with a US representative. This makes sense since most EU countries have this benefit . However, the two Presidents responded differently to this simple question: while Iohannis told the press that there were some discussions, Donald Trump said there were no such discussions. Q Thank you. Mr. President, were there any discussion about the Visa Waiver Program for Romania? Is there a time frame for including our country in this program? Thank you. PRESIDENT TRUMP: We didn’t discuss it -- PRESIDENT IOHANNIS: Yes -- PRESIDENT TRUMP: We didn’t discuss it. But there would be certainly -- it would be something we will discuss. Mr. President. PRESIDENT IOHANNIS: I mentioned this issue, and I also mentioned it during other meetings I had, because this is important for us, it's important for Romanians who want to come to the United States. And you see more and more people come, President Trump, from Romania to the United States. Some come as tourists. Some come for business. And those who come for business should be encouraged. (From the White House's Press Briefing ) So the matter of visa waiver would be probably important to discuss. And we all hope that we will advance on this. Question: Assuming the most likely scenario, where at least one question about this subject was addressed by the Romanian President, why would Trump deny such a thing? I do not see any harm in having a discussion. Or is it a sensitive subject within US politics? | There's a couple of things at play here Donald Trump shoots from the hip (meaning he doesn't consider the political ramifications before he speaks). Seriously . I could speculate all day about why he would deny a conversation he had, but Trump is well known for contradicting people who work for him, let alone foreign heads of state. There is some sensitivity here. Trump wants to be known for being an immigration hawk. Trump has already taken steps to limit the number of Visas issued . So Trump likely doesn't want his position to even be questioned, and has(in other subjects) vehemently denied what other Presidents would just quietly let slide. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19906",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
19,925 | There have been unconfirmed speculations that Trump might fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller who was appointed to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” So, can the President fire the special counsel, if not, who can? | Let me go into a little more detail than Panda's (excellent) answer. In the past, presidents have fired special prosecutors/counsels for various reasons; the laws governing the special counsel explain some of the reasons that Attorney General could do so (§ 600.7), and these were presumably also possible reasons for a president. However, this presidential ability was changed in 1999, two decades after Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre , a mass firing which has already been suggested as a precursor to some of Trump's actions. According to those regulations , only the Attorney General or Acting Attorney General can fire the special counsel (§ 600.7 (d)), emphasis mine: The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal. The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has recused himself from relevant matters, so things now fall to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is the Acting Attorney General with regards the Russian investigation 1 . Rosenstein himself - not a subordinate, not a superior (unless Sessions undoes his recusal somehow) - must make the decision. While he is in office, he is the sole human being with this power. Clearly, Rosenstein is the one person who could fire the special counsel, Robert Mueller. However, Trump could attempt to indirectly fire Mueller. Nixon ordered his Attorney General to fire the special prosecutor , and Trump could theoretically give similar orders to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein . . . which Rosenstein likely would not follow . Therefore, Trump has another option: firing Rosenstein and getting another Deputy Attorney General who would fire Mueller. If Trump fires Rosenstein, then orders could move down the chain of command in the Justice Department - established via an executive order of Trump's . The Washington Post wrote a detailed article explaining that Trump basically has two options: Doing the above, i.e. firing those who do not take action, or Hoping that Congress will not enforce the ethics regulations. It's unclear whether or not he would be successful; I don't know whether Republicans would be willing to go against their own president, but at the same time, it would severely hurt them in the public eye if they did not. I also don't know what the precedents or mechanisms for enforcing those regulations are. All of this, by the way, would involve intense public backlash. Trump is still under criticism for his firing of former FBI Director James Comey, and another set of firings would not improve his credibility . . . and draw more Watergate comparisons. Here's a graphic from that Washington Post article: To answer the question directly: Only the Attorney General or Acting Attorney General can personally fire the special counsel. However, Trump can either ignore the laws or fire those who will not do as he wants. 1 Questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee confirm that Rosenstein is the Acting Attorney General for the Russian investigation after the recusal by Sessions. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19925",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9638/"
]
} |
19,987 | There is a lot of optimism that leaving EU's Single Market, will be an opportunity for UK to create new trade deals with other countries outside the EU. I have seen articles and people using this argument, but I never got to understand it. Is the EU's Single Market, in any way, restricting UK from creating more deals with other countries? Or is UK going to be a more attractive market, if they left the EU market? Leaving the 'immigration control' factor aside, how would UK be in a better trading position by leaving the EU free trade deal? | More than "an opportunity", it should read "will be forced to", as it will begin with no trade deals with other countries and will default to the WTO rules. For the answerable part: A country within the EU cannot sign its own, separated trade deals, because the single market would mean that once the goods are in that country they can travel everywhere in the EU. For example, if there is a 10% tariff in bananas and Spain signed a trade deal agreeing to a 0% tariff, everybody would import bananas to any country of the EU through Spain. And getting the EU to sign a trade deal is not easy. The fact that the EU is formed by many countries mean that getting a trade agreement that is acceptable to all of them is considerably more difficult 1 . The UK will have an advantage of being a more "coherent" market, which means some trade deals may be easier to reach. If there are no banana producers in the UK, there would be little opposition to a trade deal that eases the import of bananas in the country. This should lead to more agility for creating trade deals. Of course, there is a downside to this: the UK will be a considerably smaller market than the EU. This means that the other part will benefit less from probable trade deals (selling their bananas to 65 million people instead of 430 million), so they may be less interested in making deals that help UK business to sell to them. And the above leads to the fact that, as of now, we cannot predict if the situation will end as a net advantage for the UK or not; we cannot even predict if we will be able to tell that in the future (what if it helps industry but hurts financial services?) 1 That is already is an issue within a country (business that feel threatened by foreign competition opposing the trade deal, business that think that they can increase they market are in favor), with all of the countries of the EU it is considerably more complicated. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/19987",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15043/"
]
} |
20,005 | Last year, a Pol.SE question asked How would a minority party in the Senate be able to delay the appointment of the President-elect's cabinet? The top answers said they can't, because the Republicans can force cloture with a simple majority. And yet it doesn't move. Regardless of Trump's failure to nominate candidates for numerous positions, 2/3rds of his nominees (84 out of 126 as of mid June) haven't reached the Senate floor. What procedures or actions are delaying these confirmation votes? | Basically, most of Trump's nominees are still awaiting to clear the respective Senate committees. As seen from The Washington Post graphic that you cited , most of the nominees are only referred to the respective Senate committee in May, which is just a month ago. Nominations must be formally submitted to the relevant Senate committee before a vote in the Senate can take place. Thus, by just announcing nominees and not formally nominating them, they cannot be confirmed by the Senate. As this article by Politico mentions, the administration didn't file the necessary paperwork for many of the nominees to make the nominations formal. President Donald Trump is lashing out at Democrats for allegedly stalling his appointments and agenda, but it’s his own administration that is frequently sitting on the necessary paperwork for nominees. However, there are also other reasons for the delay. Firstly, it may be delayed by the Office of Government Ethics as they can't review the nominees' financial reports until the administration submits them. The administration has been slow to send the nominees' financial information to the OGE, according to an OGE spokesman. South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the third-ranking Senate Republican, said some nominations may have been bottlenecked at the Office of Government Ethics, which helps hash out ethics agreements for government appointees. But an OGE spokesman suggested the White House has been slow to send them nominees’ financial information. “OGE can't review reports until we receive them,” a spokesman said. “Once we have received them, OGE has been moving these reports faster than we did in the 2009 transition.” Also, even though Democrats cannot reject nominees as they do not have the votes to do so, they are able to delay the nomination process, as mentioned in the same article: Once the nominations hit the Senate, many face political hurdles. Although Democrats can no longer defeat nominees through the filibuster, they are still pulling all the procedural levers they can to extract key concessions from the administration. One example is the nomination of Sigal Mandelker, a top Treasury Department official, which Democrats have held up to try to obtain documents involving Russia’s financial dealings with Trump associates. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20005",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7256/"
]
} |
20,019 | Following US newest sanctions towards Russia, Germany reacted against this new wave of sanctions : Germany threatened on Friday to retaliate against the United States if
new sanctions on Russia being proposed by the U.S. Senate end up
penalizing German firms. The Senate bill, approved on Thursday by a margin of 98-2, includes
new sanctions against Russia and Iran. Crucially, it foresees punitive
measures against entities that provide material support to Russia in
building energy export pipelines. This seems to be economically related, as some German companies are involved in export pipelines projects: Berlin fears that could pave the way for fines against German and
European firms involved in Nord Stream 2, a project to build a
pipeline carrying Russian gas across the Baltic. Among the European companies involved in the project are German oil
and gas group Wintershall, German energy trading firm Uniper, Royal
Dutch Shell, Austria’s OMV and France’s Engie. However, according to this source , EU has an opposite approach when it comes to energy politics: In the midst of growing conflicts over the expansion of the
German-Russian Nord Stream pipeline, the European Union (EU)
Commission has taken steps over the past week to reduce European
dependence on Russian gas East European countries seem to be among the most vocal against the pipeline between Russia and Germany : The Nord Stream 2 project, meant to pipe natural gas from Russia
across the Baltic Sea into Germany, unleashed a blizzard of
opposition, particularly from Eastern European countries and even
former President Barack Obama’s administration, after it was announced
in 2015. Some critics say the pipeline doesn’t make economic sense and
isn’t needed; the original Nord Stream pipe is only about half used.
And many worry it would redouble Europe’s reliance on Russian energy
imports and make it easier for Moscow to use energy as a blunt
political tool to strongarm neighbors . Question: why does Germany seem to not favor EU energy independence? | It's probably because the "not favouring EU energy independence from Russia" is totally made up. Look at the first quoted material: It clearly states that Germany threatens to retaliate if Trump take actions that are damaging to German companies. In this situation we have American sanctions, an American explanation why Europe should be happy with these sanctions, and Europeans that clearly don't accept America's self serving reasoning. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20019",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
20,036 | It is no obscure fact that North Korea is a major violator of human rights guidelines with its authoritarianism and poverty and is a major threat to world peace with its incessant nuclear weapons tests. Therefore, why is North Korea allowed to be part of the UN? Do the UN not have membership guidelines that directly oppose the kind of behaviour that North Korea partake in? | TLDR: No real law is opposed to their actions and expelling them would suit nobody According to the UN charter , membership is open to is open to all peace-loving States that accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter and, in the judgement of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations Realistically, the peace-loving is usually ignored in form of the alternative definition of sovereign state. This is largely because several permanent members of the UN Security Council can rightly be accused of not being peace loving (Russia in Crimea ; America in Iraq /Afghanistan/Vietnam etc.; Britain in Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) Indeed, possession of nuclear weapons in not regulated directly by the United Nations, again because if nuclear weapon tests and possession of missiles was a factor which disqualified you from being in the UN, every single permanent member of the Security Council and then some would get disqualified. And technically speaking, the nuclear tests aren't outright illegal , since again nobody really wrote too many laws concerning the topic because the countries who possessed and wanted nuclear weapons were the primary authors of international law. North and South Korea were simultaneously admitted to the UN in 1991 long before they started conducting nuclear tests in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 702 . Now technically speaking North Korea could get expelled from the UN. Article 6 of the Charter describes as follows A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. This has never happened, and is unlikely to ever happen in the case of North Korea. This is because both Russia and China are permanent members of the UN security council, both of whose best interests are not served by expelling North Korea from the UN. To be fair no country's interests are best served by expelling North Korea from the UN, since suddenly you are cutting off dialogue and the possibility of negotiations to being an end to their nuclear program; as such if you refuse to negotiate a surrender of their nuclear program then the only option would be an invasion. An invasion that would result in catastrophic consequences (with or without nuclear weapons). Side note: North Korea have only conducted 6 nuclear tests (compare to over 1000 by America ) -- the tests that keep cropping up on the news are missile tests , not nuclear tests. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20036",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/14439/"
]
} |
20,038 | The Canadian bill C-16 ("An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code") has been the subject of heated debate and controversy. I admit I hadn't followed it very closely, but I've seen many articles and videos discussing that it somehow made not addressing someone with their preferred pronoun illegal (e.g. here ). Today, I finally read what I think is the text of the bill and its accompanying analysis from the official site of the Canadian parliament and, as far as I can tell, all this bill is doing is adding gender identity to the list of reasons for which one should not be discriminated against. So, why all this discussion about pronouns? I saw no mention of pronouns there nor any text that would suggest that intentionally not using someone's preferred pronoun could be considered illegal 1 . So why has so much of the negative reaction to the bill been centered around the concepts of free speech and misgendering people? Is there more text that I haven't found? Am I missing certain implications of the bill's language? Where does pronoun choice come into it? 1 This question is not about whether that should or not be illegal so let's please not get into that here. I am only asking whether this specific bill is actually offering any legal grounds on which such pronoun use could be prosecuted. | There is no factual basis for the claim that incorrect pronoun use will lead to negative consequences. The bill does two things: It adds gender identity or expression as protected classes under the Canadian Human Rights Act It adds gender identity or expression as protected classes to the criminal code, specifically to a section about hate propaganda and to provisions about sentencing hate crimes. Regarding 1., there has to be an actual discriminatory act (such as refusing housing or services), it is not enough to express an opinion or use wrong pronouns. Regarding 2., to be convicted of hate propaganda, one has to actually, intentionally, incite hatred or promote genocide, so it doesn't apply. The Canadian Bar Association agrees with this assessment : Recently, the debate has turned to whether the amendments will force individuals to embrace concepts, even use pronouns, which they find objectionable. This is a misunderstanding of human rights and hate crimes legislation . [...] Those concerned that they could be criminalized for their repugnant or offensive ideas fail to understand a crucial distinction in the law. As the Supreme Court of Canada has explained: The distinction between the expression of repugnant ideas and expression which exposes groups to hatred is crucial to understanding the proper application of hate speech
prohibitions. [...] The amendment to the CHRA will not compel the speech of private citizens Brenda Cossman - a professor of law - agrees with this assessment: I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada [...] “The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” she continues. “If he advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about.” The idea that incorrect pronoun usage would become illegal seems to have originated from Jordan Peterson, who is not an expert in law, but a professor of psychology. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20038",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/4815/"
]
} |
20,087 | Greece's and other southern European countries' debt has been considered a problem since the 2008 crash, and austerity measures have been forced to the people. However the United States also have a colossal debt, yet I have never heard of it being a problem or that the United States requires austerity measures. I have no idea how accurate they are, but the US debt clock displays a debt with 14 significant numbers in US$, while the Greece debt clock "only" displays a debt with 12 significant numbers (also in US$). Other sources state $32,000 per capita for Greece, $56,000 per capita for USA. I know that the population of Greece is much less than in the U.S., however I do not think it matters to people "lending" money to the governments - In both cases it seems extremely unlikely that this money will ever be refunded. Also Greece receives more tourists each year than it's own resident population (15 million tourists for 11 million residents) so it's hard to compare. | I know that the population of Greece is much less than in the U.S., however I do not think it matters to people "lending" money to the governments This is where you are mistaken. The lender is concerned with the ability of the borrower to pay back the debt. If I have an annual income of $100,000, then all else being equal I can borrow much more than if my income is $10,000. The relevant measure here is debt-to-GDP ratio ; that is, the size of debt in relation to the national economy. The "national economy" encompasses all industry and other economic activity, including tourism. The values are 181.6% for Greece and 73.8% for the USA. Basically, the debt of Greece is about 2.5 times larger in relation to its economy. Investors also take into account the borrowing country's political stability, tax collection, spending commitments, and so on. (This is analagous to a mortgage lender considering employment history, outgoing expenses, and the like.) On all these counts, Greece is in a worse position than the USA, so it is even worse off than the headline figure would indicate. Finally, the USA's national debt is denominated in dollars. If needed, the Federal Reserve can issue as many new dollars as it likes, so the USA cannot fail to pay its debt (unless its government chooses to default). Greece does not have this advantage, because its debt is denominated in euros. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20087",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5279/"
]
} |
20,334 | If Her Majesty so desired, would she have been allowed to overrule the will of both the people and the House of Commons and prevent the triggering of Article 50? If so, what political backlash would result from such an action? | In theory: Yes. Brexit requires legislation, which the Queen can veto; and the Queen also has prerogative over international treaties. It was decided by the UK Supreme Court that the government cannot instigate Brexit at all without the approval of Parliament. Parliament has already passed an Act authorising the Prime Minister to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and begin the formal process of leaving the EU. At that time, the Queen could have refused royal assent to the Act and stopped Brexit. Now that the Act has received royal assent, there is no procedure for "unassenting" it; it could only be overruled by a further Act of Parliament. However, the technical process of Brexit will require eight further Acts of Parliament, as set out in the Queen's Speech on 21 June 2017. In principle, any or all of these could be vetoed by the Queen. Furthermore, the executive power of the British government to make and withdraw from international treaties is a royal prerogative, exercised on the Queen's behalf by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If the Queen saw fit, then in theory she could use these powers herself. French President Macron has suggested the UK could choose to remain in the EU; the Queen could simply declare that she is exercising this option and cancelling Brexit by royal decree. In practice: No. The government of the UK depends very heavily on unwritten conventions . If an action violates convention, it is not in any practical sense possible, even though the letter of the law may seem to allow it. There is absolutely no recent precedent for a British monarch overruling Parliament in this manner. The last time a monarch vetoed a bill was more than 300 years ago, and that was not on a particularly momentous issue. (Specifically, Queen Anne withheld assent in 1708 from a bill on arming militia in Scotland.) Other precedents did not end well for the monarch: Charles I (reigned 1625-49) fought a civil war which ended with his defeat and execution; James II (1685-88) was overthrown and exiled; Edward VIII (1936) was compelled to abdicate. Queen Elizabeth II personally has been scrupulously neutral in party politics, throughout her reign of more than 60 years. It is exceedingly unlikely that she would change her approach now. Unless the country was in such a state of crisis that it amounted to imminent or actual civil war, it is almost unimaginable that the Queen would interfere in politics in this way; or that the government, Parliament, and public opinion would tolerate such interference if she tried. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20334",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/14439/"
]
} |
20,459 | The Opposition forced a vote for today on the end of austerity measures (not all) in regards to pay cap on public sector jobs. (The vote also includes pay rises for emergency services and the recruitment of police officers and fire-fighters) UK austerity was initiated with the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition in 2010, but the national debt has nearly doubled since then . So what is the actual aim of said programme, if we're accruing more debt? Update : I've learnt not to look into national debt as an isolated topic, instead should be looking at the ratio of Debt to GDP, which provided by @JBentley "went from around 71% to 84% , which puts things into perspective". | The stated aim of austerity is to promote economic growth, which ultimately would allow reduction of the UK national debt relative to GDP. From the budget speech given by George Osborne, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the House of Commons on 22 June 2010: Some have suggested that there is a choice between dealing with our debts and going for growth. That is a false choice. The crisis in the Eurozone shows that unless we deal with our debts there will be no growth. And these forecasts demonstrate that a credible plan to cut our budget deficit goes hand in hand with a steady and sustained economic recovery, with low inflation and falling unemployment. The UK economy has continued to grow , but the national debt has grown faster . Some economists have criticised the assumption that austerity will promote increased growth. The UK government remains committed to austerity measures such as the cap on public sector pay; but in a speech on 20 June 2017 Chancellor Philip Hammond acknowledged public discontent with austerity, and suggested the government would consider increased borrowing to invest in economic growth. Exactly what form this investment may take remains to be seen. A practical effect of austerity has been to reduce government spending as a percentage of GDP, from 48.0% in 2010 to 42.1% in 2016. It is fair to note that many Conservatives see this as a desirable goal , in and of itself. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20459",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11264/"
]
} |
20,505 | Gerrymandering is a problem; a Representative could have their voter base diluted across neighboring districts at the whim of the controlling party. But Senate elections are statewide, and states don't tend to change shape a lot. Given that Senators are elected by popular vote, does this mean that gerrymandering has no direct effect on the election of US Senators? | Yes. Currently gerrymandering has no effect on US Senators. However, before the ratification of the 17th amendment to Constitution, Senators were elected/chosen by the state legislature. The state legislature, including its senators(at least in my state), have and have had districts. So, since gerrymandering started "officially" in 1812 and since the 17th amendment wasn't passed for another 100 years , US senator elections could have and probably were affected by gerrymandering. Although, its effect was more indirect. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20505",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6599/"
]
} |
20,579 | Why is the USA able to damage the Russian economy by imposing sanctions but Russia can't do the same? For example see U.S. tightens sanctions on Russia over Crimea , New US sanctions on Russia inflame old tensions , as well as many more reports. | Please note that this answer is from 2017. While the general idea is still true, I've added a note on the current (February 2022) situation. Asymmetry The economical relation between the USA and Russia is asymmetrical. Russia depends a great deal on its trade with the USA, while the USA don't depend much on their trade with Russia. Export from the USA to Russia is worth about $13.2 billion. Export from Russia to the USA is worth about $10.2 billion. Those numbers make the USA Russia's 7th largest export destination at 4.2% and its 3rd largest import origin at 5.5% . In contrast Russia is only responsible for 0.74% of the USA's exports and 0.61% of their imports . The USA can hurt Russia far more, economically speaking, than Russia can hurt the USA. If all trade between the USA and Russia stopped, the USA would only be hurt for 0.74% of their exports and 0.61% of their imports, while Russia would be hurt for 4.2% of its exports and 5.5% of its imports. Partners The sanctions on Russia aren't imposed by the USA alone. The EU, another large trade partner imposes similar sanctions. Individual EU countries may be hurt by them as well, if Russia is a particularly large trade partner, but again the relation isn't symmetrical, at Russia's detriment. The sanctions against Russia have increased in February 2022, due to its invasion of Ukraine. One particular aspect may hit some countries in the EU somewhat harder, which is gas. Not petrol, but natural gas, on which a number of countries in Europe are dependent for energy. Still, the general idea of asymmetry remains. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20579",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
20,664 | It seems that whatever happens (or happened) in a UK general election, the Irish nationalist party, Sinn Féin, will presumably always be in opposition. This means that the British government - whoever they may be at the time - will always be happy with the fact that Sinn Féin don't take their seats - this time around, that's 7 opposing votes they don't have to worry about in parliament. So Sinn Féin is in effect half-supporting whoever is in power. Surely they could do more damage to the government and further their own policies more by going to Westminster, even if it is quite a small minority. What is the goal of this policy? What are they hoping the result will be? | The New Statesman sums it up fairly succinctly Sinn Féin is an Irish republican political party active in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Its central aim is for a united Ireland. It opposes Westminster’s jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, and its oath to the Queen, so its MPs abstain from sitting in parliament. In order to sit and vote in parliament, MPs must take the Oath of Allegiance I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God. While there is provision for atheist and agnostic MPs to affirm rather than invoking a deity they don't believe in, there is no provision to swear allegiance to an entity other than the British monarch, which Sinn Fein MPs refuse to do. In this sense, abstaining is the ethical thing to do. Having said that, it's unclear if Sinn Fein MPs would choose to sit in the House if the obligation to take the oath were waived, since they also believe the true government of Northern Ireland to be in Ireland , with the British an occupying power. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20664",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/10425/"
]
} |
20,679 | I conversed with someone the other day who said that just like we study and take tests to obtain a driver's license, we should similarly study and pass tests to get a voters' license. She said that this would at least partially prevent unengaged and/or uninformed voters from influencing the election in an objectively undesired way. What are some objective reasons why this won't work as intended, or why it is a bad idea? By objective, I mean, please avoid answers such as "voting is a right", and so on. That is definitely a respectable response, but a very subjective one as well. | Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? One important reason to not implement a license system that it is much more vulnerable to manipulations. Whoever runs the tests gets the power to decide who can vote and who cannot. There is no objective measure of "voting fitness" - the test's difficulty can range from only very simple questions that most people should already know without looking them up (who is the current head of government? etc.) to something that you cannot pass without at least one month of preparation. Where do you draw the line, even in an "unbiased" test? How do you make sure that the test designers are fair? As it is, many ruling parties in democratic countries try to use their power to exclude certain minorities from voting. They cannot directly forbid it because the right to vote is universal - but they are sometimes trying really hard to set up some barriers to make it very inconvenient to vote for groups they view as leaning towards their political opponents. Or take, for example, gerrymandering. In theory, it is great to make every vote count exactly the same, but in practice, you can see what it leads to. Giving out licenses would make things much easier for parties that try to shift elections in their favor. By the way, did I write "unbiased"? Even that is an illusion. The test will be biased by design: It is specifically targeted to exclude uneducated voters. A lack of education correlates with a lack of income. Thus, the final vote will shift towards the opinion of the rich. Is that even desirable in the first place? Elections are democracy's way to give the people a way to "correct" their government if they disagree with it - the other way to do so used to be revolutions. There are many disillusioned voters right now already. If you completely take away their right to re-join the democratic decision making process, they won't be happy, that's for sure. At the end of the day, the only "objectively desired" outcome of an election has to be to accurately reflect the opinion of the entire electorate. If the majority of the people are making "stupid" decisions, well, that sucks, but it is their right - not only because of ethics, because of necessity. They will continue to be existant even if you chose to ignore them. So you have to listen. Many of the world's politicians make the mistake to think otherwise. If you want to have less uneducated voters, the most sustainable way is .. to educate them. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20679",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15371/"
]
} |
20,711 | Germany, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Slovenia, Austria, Slovak republic, and so on. Why do they allow non-EU/EEA students to have free tuitions? What is their benefit as a country? | There are at least three benefits: Influence: Some students will go on to become their country's elite and will stay in a touch with the network they build in university. Expanding the workforce: Some students will stay and work in Germany after their studies (there are actually some rules to encourage that in immigration law). Making the country attractive to parents: Coming to Germany specifically to study isn't easy, many of these non-EU citizens are actually the children of immigrants/expats Germany is keen on attracting. That's not necessarily a strong reason to have absolutely no fees. For example, some Dutch universities position themselves as an alternative to the US and UK for students from China, India, and elsewhere by having lower fees but studying there is certainly not completely free. Also, you asked about benefits and I focused on that but that's not the only consideration. For example, providing education to foreign citizens from poorer countries can also be regarded as a form of development aid. Incidentally, strict visa requirements and teaching (mostly) in German means that the number of students in question is any case very limited so there is no risk to see German university swamped by legions of Asian students and costs running out of control. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20711",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
21,742 | I don't quite get the exact difference. I know the mercenaries act with less oversight, but are also quite expensive. So, I wonder why the US Military used mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan so extensively. I would like to know the main operational differences. Issues like cost, political impact, etc. | For the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, relevant factors include (but are not limited to): Expendability It is generally understood that uniformed troops serve out of patriotism; and in return, the government owes them a duty of care. Death, injury, post-traumatic stress, or simply long deployment away from homes and families, is politically sensitive for national armed forces. Mercenaries, by definition, are working purely for money rather than love of country, so these considerations do not apply. Long-term medical care The US government is committed to medical care of veterans. Modern medicine and body armour enable soldiers to survive incidents which in a past era would have been fatal, but such incidents can still result in very severe injuries. Medical care for a wounded solider may be very expensive, and continue for decades after the war is over. In the case of mercenaries, all such costs fall upon the company which employs them, which will not necessarily have a lifetime commitment to wounded employees. Graft/corruption The Pentagon is notorious for wasting money, and for making spending decisions based on political factors. The decision to hire mercenaries may not be based on an objective cost/benefit analysis. Cost cutting The upfront cost for combat mercenaries is quite high. Non-combat support staff may be considerably less expensive than uniformed troops, especially once the costs of training, pensions, and medical care are taken into account. They can perform tasks such as catering or cleaning, freeing up uniformed service members for other activities. Volunteer armed forces The USA has all-volunteer armed forces. Expanding their numbers is therefore difficult; this was especially so during the long and unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The use of conscription would have been extremely unpopular, and increasing pay and benefits for all existing troops would have been very expensive. The use of mercenaries enabled the US forces to expand their numbers while avoiding these obstacles. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21742",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/5501/"
]
} |
21,763 | Trump Jr. recently disclosed emails suggesting he welcomed Russian help against Clinton (see for instance here and here ). To a considerable extent, this seems a damaging move to him and to much of the team he is working with. As far as I understand, this is pretty much political self-harm. Why would he do such a thing? How does this move serve his interest? | According to CNN, the emails were released by Donald Trump Jr. shortly before they were going to be published by the New York Times. From this article , we read: Trump Jr. tweeted that he was releasing the emails to be "totally transparent," but his release came moments before The New York Times published the content of the emails. The only options for Donald Trump Jr. would be to deny it or try to accept that the mails were going to be public and working on that assumption. In the face of the importance of the issues, it is to be expected that these e-mails are going to be included into the ongoing probes 1 about Russian meddling in the presidential campaign and Trump's team collusion with Russia, and that would lead to -very likely- Donald Trump Jr. being forced to testify. If Donald Trump Jr. were to testify, his options would be either: Accept the evidence. Refuse to answer (use the 5th Ammendment). Lie under oath and risk perjury charges. '#1 and #2 lead to admit (explicitly or implicitly) that the e-mails are indeed true. So, (if we discard #3) claiming that the emails are false it would only lead to Trump Jr. being forced to rectify, only that at a later time (during which the issue would not be forgotten) and with yet more damage to his credibility. By releasing the e-mail he may (attempt to) claim that he was "not hiding anything" and try to get as much of a positive spin 2 from it as possible, under the current circumstances. For example, his release in twitter was accompanied by affirmations that what he did was ok and which (despite no legal expert agreeing with that) are already being repeated by his supporters. Other possible advantages that I can think of (although I will admit that these are a little twisted; I would be surprised if those were the main reasons but they could have helped in making the decision): It takes away the spotlight from the New York Times article that would (most probably) be very critical of the situation described in the emails. This allows the emails to be presented to the public through some news organizations that are known to justify everything the Trump government does and dismiss any criticism of it, no matter what. It "steals" the New York Times part of the publicity/brand recognition it would have got for the publication of the emails. 1 If such a story goes as far as to being published, it is reasonable to assume that the journalist has evidence enough to prove that the emails are indeed Donald Trump Jr.'s. 2 This is usually called controlling the narrative . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21763",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
21,769 | In an email sent from Rob Goldstone to Donald Trump Jr. that was released by Trump Jr. on Twitter , it was mentioned in one email that the "Crown prosecutor of Russia" met with Aras Agalarov. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning ... I am curious what is a Crown Prosecutor and who holds that position currently ? | Basically, this article by The Atlantic explains that Rob Goldstone likely mixed up the titles. Crown Prosecutor is a title commonly used in Commonwealth realms, that refers to a prosecutor that works for the Crown, i.e. a federal prosecutor or a state prosecutor in the context of a state . However, there is no such position in Russia, so he's likely referring to the Prosecutor General of Russia , a position currently held by Yury Chaika. In the US, the analogue would be the Attorney-General. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21769",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9638/"
]
} |
21,786 | Throughout Europe, in recent years, the issue of the muslim burka and its potential ban has often been discussed. I have heard a couple of reasons at most, and they all pretty much sum up to ' burka -> woman oppression -> bad'. My question is, how would one then politically and legislatively navigate around the issue of banning the burka specifically, and not any other similar-looking clothing, such as nun habits? And even if one manages to ban the burka specifically and not the nun habit, how would one deal with muslim women throwing away their burkas and wearing the allowable nun habit? | How do some countries make political laws against the burka but not against nun habits? The nun habit doesn't cover the face, that's the big difference. The usual approach in Europe is to forbid/restrict face covering. Therefore a nun habit usually is allowed. The European Court of Human Rights has allowed bans based on that approach, e.g. the French so called "Burka Ban." Note that the French ban also prohibit non-religious clothing like this (taken from @Laurent PELE's answer with permission): From Wikimedia . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21786",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15416/"
]
} |
21,809 | During the recent years I have heard now and then about George Soros being demonized in several public speeches of some politicians from various countries. This article catches some of these declarations: US (Donald Trump / Roger Stone) Donald Trump ruled that Americans protesting against him were
“professional” agitators. Roger Stone, who has worked for the filthy
wing of the right since Nixon’s day, followed up by announcing he had
discovered the agitators were “paid for” by none other than Soros. Republican senators are now trying to persuade the Trump
administration to cut support for Soros’s campaign to promote
democracy and human rights in eastern Europe. Macedonia (Nikola Gruevski) [...] has called for a “de-Sorosisation” of society Hungary - (Viktor Orbán) [..] self-proclaimed illiberal democracy is threatening the
Soros-funded Central European University. Romania (various TV channels, some political leaders) Romania’s socialist elite imitates Trump and claims Soros pays
citizens to take to the streets to demonstrate against corruption. As a funny side note, a reporter even claimed that dogs were payed by Soros and the TV channel was fined for this. Another article completes the list of countries: Poland (Krystyna Pawlowicz) called him the “most dangerous man in the world” on Radio Maryja, a
Catholic broadcaster. She said his foundations “finance anti-Christian
and anti-national activities.” He got in trouble in Israel : ISRAEL has voiced its support for the Hungary poster campaign
targetting financier George Soros claiming he "undermines” the
nation’s government. George Soros's activity seems to be mostly related to promoting transparency, free elections, free speech and a free press. None of these things seems bad for any reasonable person. Also, he is quite old and his figure hardly inspires fear to anyone. Question: why does George Soros is demonized in so many countries? | George Soros's activity seems to be mostly related to promoting transparency, free elections, free speech and a free press. George Soros has other things that he supports. For example, he supports switching from oil and coal to natural gas and renewables, which those supporting oil and coal find annoying. Soros also owns natural gas reserves and production facilities. Soros opposed the Iraq war. Soros favors same sex marriage and related issues. He's pro-choice (i.e. favors legal abortion). Soros is for drug legalization. Soros has his own take on environmental issues (natural gas good). He believes in a high tax and spending government. We can argue about whether his positions are correct, but they aren't simply about transparency, free elections, free speech, and a free press. He takes distinctly liberal positions on many other issues. The conservative view of George Soros . Soros is the twelfth largest contributor to political campaigns in the United States, and his contributions go exclusively to Democrats/liberals (in the US sense). I'm not as aware of what he does internationally (outside the US), but some of the same issues exist. For example, the Polish example refers to "anti-Christian" views. Those are probably legalized abortion, same sex marriage, and similar positions. Soros on Israel : ...his Open Society Foundations began an ambitious project in 2009 to persuade Europe and the U.S. to "hold Israel accountable" for violations of international law. Unsurprisingly, Israel doesn't much think that it needs to be held accountable for its actions. It is of the opinion that it is Palestinian actions that are the problem. From that perspective, the Soros project is making life harder for the Israelis without applying the same standards to the Palestinians. Macedonia, Hungary, and Romania may have their own reasons. Or maybe those politicians are against transparency and freedom on their face. The given quotes don't tell us one way or the other. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21809",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11278/"
]
} |
21,811 | My understanding is that Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer intending to get information damaging to Hillary Clinton from said lawyer. Campaigning politicians always gather damaging information about their opponents from anywhere they can find it. I don't understand why the source of the information makes a difference. If they had been working together to do something specifically illegal, like hacking voting booths or something, I could understand the fuss but gathering information is a perfectly legal and normal thing to do so far as I know. What am I missing? If the lawyer had been Swedish instead of Russian would this still be an issue? Edit:
If the fact that the information came from a foreign national is what makes it illegal, does this mean that any information that a campaign finds useful, no matter how mundane, from anyone who is not a US citizen is illegal to obtain? | The short answer is yes. It does matter where the information comes from There is a legal difference because a campaign cannot take something of value from a foreign agent . But that is off topic. It makes a big difference politically because of the ongoing investigation into contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government. As such it fits a pattern of senior people, close to Trump, having contacts with Russian agents, in this case, a lawyer who has some (disputed) connection to the Russian Government. It would have been different if it had been a Swedish Lawyer. Sweden is an active ally of the USA, Sweden is a close partner to NATO and a "Western Democracy". Russia is none of these things. Moreover, there have been multiple examples of people losing their position in the Trump administration (Cage, Manafort, and most notably Flynn) following evidence that they had contacts with Russians. The Russians favoured the election of Trump over Clinton. The impression is that these stories about Russian are moving closer to the President. The question is, did President act improperly? So on its own, this is not much of a story. But as part of a pattern of behaviour among Trump associates, it is important. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21811",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15472/"
]
} |
21,850 | USSR was all about fighting for the working class rights against capitalism being inherently multicultural - so there seems to be nothing in its ideology that would go directly against homosexuality. In addition to that: USSR was against religion and its prejudices (what is one of the most important reason of countries nowadays being against it). USSR was against nazi ideology that was heavily against homosexuality. So, why then was there no gay culture in USSR, no gay weddings etc ? | I think it is like asking why drinking too much vodka was so widely accepted in the SU, if nothing in "Das Kapital" promoted it. First, you are right that there is nothing in the Communist ideology against homosexuality. But, at the time being, there was nothing in the Communist ideology in support of sexual rights/freedoms 1 , neither; these ideas were popularized in the 60s and mostly in the Western countries. Second, even if we accepted that the origin of homophobia is only religion/church 2 , that does not mean that once religion & church are gone then all of the people who had been receiving those teachings would be "magically" cured. People and societies are hard to change; people who have received for all their life the message that homosexuality is evil will make that idea theirs and will keep passing it along. To fight such an "internalized" behavior it is not enough to just remove the source of the idea 3 , a more active approach is needed. And third, it forgets that the people who took power after the revolution had received that same message against homosexuality through all of their lifes, too. The Communist doctrine told them to be against capitalists, kings and priests, but not to defend homosexual rights; so they did not have an ideological reason to change that. Now, if it is that hard to change people's habits through publicity 4 , imagine how hard is for people to change their views about homosexuality when there were not even campaigns promoting the change. In the 1920s there were some openings and homosexuality was decriminalized (remember, in the UK it was decriminalized in 1965), but those were far from having universal support within the Party. When Stalin (who sexually was very conservative) came to power the liberalization process stopped and was reverted (homosexuality was criminalized again in 1933). You may read more about that in Wikipedia TL;DR Homophobia was inherited as a part of the social customs. While some in the Communist party were more open-minded, most in the Communist party leadership did have neither the ideological need nor the desire to combat this attitude, and many in fact seem to have favored it. 1 The only possible exception being that of equality between men and women, and even that was still far from perfect in practice. 2 To the unattentive reader: I am not claiming that, this just an hypothesis in order to avoid entering into unrelated debates. 3 And again, that is just using the hypothesis that the only source of homophobia was religion/church. 4 To return to the vodka example, after the revolution there where many public campaigns against alcoholism, but it remained a problem. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21850",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/-1/"
]
} |
21,887 | In several accounts about the Sunni-Shia conflicts erupting in the Middle East (such as this one ) the Sunnis are usually viewed as taking the side of a monarchy and the Shia the side of the rebels wanting some form of republic (Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, with Syria being an exception). Are there any religious/historical reasons for this preference of a monarchy by Sunnis and a republic by Shias? Or is it just coincidence or a consequence of the Iranian revolution of the 70s and the Saudi Arabia/Iran "cold war" (as described in the previous link)? | If anything it is the other way round. The key political difference between Sunni and Shia Islam is the status of the family of the prophet. In Shia Islam, God chose Ali, who was Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, and Muhammad's closest blood relative as the leader of Muslims after Muhammad. The leaders of Shia Islam claim a direct bloodline to Ali. In Sunni Islam, following the guidance of Muhammad's actions in life, his father-in-law Abu Bakr was elected Caliph. The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that, as a head of state, a caliph should be chosen by Muslims. Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God from Muhammad's direct descendants. However this applies to the Caliph, the leader of Islam. There is no widely recognised Caliph in Islam, on either the Shia or Sunni branches. The various Kings and Emirs of Islamic countries do not claim the Caliphate. The Leader of Iran doesn't either. The leader of Daesh claimed the caliphate, but this claim was not widely recognised. As such there are many Kings and Emirs of Islamic countries, while other countries have a theocratic leader, and other are republics. There are a number of notable Sunni Monarchies, but other Sunni states (Egypt, Pakistan for example) are Republics. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21887",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15570/"
]
} |
21,930 | After Brexit, would the UK be able to do trade deals with individual countries such as Germany, France, etc. without these deals having to be sanctioned by the European Union? | No, it won't be able to. The EU is the exclusive point of contact for trade deals with the EU and its members - or more precisely, for members of the European Union Customs Union . Concluding international agreements on behalf of its members also is part of the EU's exclusive competences . Edit to clarify: they will , of course, be able to negotiate trade deals with countries that are not part of the EU. Unless, that is, they remain within the European Union Customs Union. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21930",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15593/"
]
} |
21,941 | Countries such as Sweden have debit card adoption rates close to 100%. The governments of the developed world frequently talk about moving to a completely cashless society, but so far not a single territory has made the switch. So what's currently stopping the developed states with very high credit/debit card adoption numbers from completely abandoning cash? | It's mainly because there will always be people who do not have credit cards and still uses cash, for example, 96% in Sweden in the article that you cited. 4% is still a relatively huge number. This article by BBC addresses Sweden, noting that not everyone welcomes the move: Like the Netherlands and its Scandinavian neighbours, Sweden is among the front-runners in the race to eradicate cash. But not everyone is welcoming. One of the reasons the article mentioned is that many people are reluctant to give up using cash, including Germany , as they believe that "cash gives them better control over their spending". The Guardian mentioned that some are not quite ready for this drastic change, so it will still take sometime to convince those who still prefer cash. And it's also a political decision and thus it will need to be popular with Swedes before the government can abandon cash. Old people’s organisations also fear that those who prefer cash , out of a reluctance to use new technology or simply because they find it easier to keep track of their spending, will be disadvantaged , while educators worry that young people will be tempted to spend money they do not have. For these and other social reasons , Arvidsson said, cash is not dead quite yet . “Even if, in the next few years, Swedes use almost no cash at all, going 100% cashless needs a political decision ,” he said.“The idea of cash, even in Sweden, remains very strong.” (emphasis mine) Totally abandoning cash will also result in problems with interest rates , since one could no longer keep cash at home and have to always be subjected to the bank's interest rate, unless governments introduce reforms regulating this but it will take time. A central bank by all means can adopt a negative rate, charging retail banks to hold their surplus funds on deposit ... But in their hordes, customers would up and leave, withdrawing their cash and locking it up at home. Unless they no longer could. Unless there were no longer notes and coins to withdraw, and they were confined to a digital ecosystem, free to move their money between banks but not away from them. (emphasis mine) Some other challenges include privacy concerns , since electronic payments leave a trace and can be possibly tracked back by companies. So, without cash, anonymous payments will not be possible. This is something most of us have taken for granted as a huge advantage of the old Greenback. It is the most private, and direct way to transmit value . If you use a debit card, Bitcoin, or a wire transfer, you are creating a massive paper trail that can compromise your identity or security , both now and in the future. Some are just now realizing how important these benefits are today. (emphasis mine) | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21941",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
21,999 | There have been a lot of talks recently about the erosion of judicial independence in Poland after the new government has decided to change the way judges are nominated. However to me (as a Czech resident) this criticism seems a bit strange since in the Czech Republic judges have always been nominated directly by the executive (subject to approval by the Parliament) and therefore the judicial system has never really been independent in the first place. How does the new situation in Poland compare to the situations in other EU countries? Is it really true that judges are usually independent from the Executive and the Legislative branches of the government? | There's a key difference: In the Czech Republic, judges are appointed for life and cannot be revoked . Once appointed they can go rabid against the Executive and Legislative branches of government if the situation calls it. (EU countries all have a similarly independent Judiciary branch, whereby Judges cannot readily be dismissed nor can they have their salary slashed on a whim.) By contrast the Polish Justice Ministry would be able to dismiss judges if the reform passes, i.e. the Executive branch of government would be able to keep the Judiciary on a tight leash. Further reading on Judicial independence . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/21999",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
23,062 | Consider the following premises, for which I think there is fair degree of consensus (at least according to my knowledge of political history of Latin America, but perhaps more broadly): the majority of rich individuals vote for right wing parties there is no clear voting pattern among the poor regarding left and right wing parties right wing parties favour policies that, even if they might benefit the poor, they certainly benefit the rich (e.g. low taxation, privatisation of companies, free trade, etc) left wing parties favour policies that, even if they might benefit the rich, they certainly benefit the poor (e.g. higher taxation, more subsidies, more public services at lower costs, protectionist policies, etc) Then, a natural question arises. Why are the rich more able to identify the party which represents their (class) interests (i.e. right-wing) than the poor? Possible hypothesis that I have think of are: higher education allow for better understanding of policies media mainly in control of right-wing parties, obscuring/altering information to the poor politicians are normally upper class, so the poor cannot identify easily with them demagogic politicians from the right can lure poor voters to them, whereas demagogic politicians from the left cannot lure rich voters to them (but why?) left-wing policies are much more evident to be at expenses of the rich than right-wing policies are to be at expenses of the poor. E.g. higher taxes clearly mean taxing the rich more, whereas lower taxes does not directly affect taxation of the poor. How do different political theory explain this? An answer with references would be greatly appreciated. Edit (more to come...): as it is natural to expect that a lot of the focus is in the US (as the question was originally phrased in such a way), the evidence in terms of voting patters by income level in the US is not entirely evident in supporting the premises. In general, the likelihood of voting Republican increases with income (see page 50 here ) and it is still high for the lowest income. It could be that the proportion voting Democrat among the high income individuals might be higher than its respective proportion for the poor (see here ). In the UK the story is slightly more supportive , especially because the rich tend mainly to vote conservative. The poor give a lot of votes to Labour and a less proportion to conservative. | Why are “the rich” more able to identify the party which represent their interests than “the poor”? Mostly, because your assumption is just that, an assumption, and is an incorrect one at that. I won't go down the rabbit hole of disputing your Marx-influenced class based assumption that somehow, left wing parties [1] represent interests of "the poor" and the right wing parties of "the rich", even though that assumption is also largely wrong [2] . (as food for thought: would you rather be "the poor" in Venezuela or the USSR, or in USA or UK? As a basic fact, you may want to look at a number of people trying to - legally and illegally - immigrate to USA vs. # of poor people from USA trying to emigrate to more left wing countries. Cuba is, after all, just a boat ride away from Florida) I will only look at the other side of your assumption that "the rich" somehow solidly identify with right/conservative side. At least in the USA, the number of the "rich" who identify with the party which you claim "doesn't represent their interests" is staggeringly high (40% by now) and keeps rising. First, general research (I tried to pick left of centre media, since they don't have incentive to make stuff up if it sounds worse for Democrats): From staunchly Trump-hating Washington Post's "Tech billionaires like Democrats more than Republicans. Here’s why" : As much as Republicans, the Democrats are now also the party of billionaires. (their source is research by Adam Bonica , ) The same research is covered by Forbes, giving exact #s: The next time you hear Senator Bernie Sanders rail against the nefarious influence of “millionaires and billionaires,” it might be important to know that 39% of the nation’s wealthiest donors are backing Democrats more than Republicans this election . Even more interesting, the number of card carrying liberal titans is likely to increase dramatically, as billionaires from new industries, especially Silicon Valley, are unambiguously Democratic cheerleaders*. From New York Times' "How Did the Democrats Become Favorites of the Rich?" Democrats now depend as much on affluent voters as on low-income voters. Democrats represent a majority of the richest congressional districts, and the party’s elected officials are more responsive to the policy agenda of the well-to-do than to average voters. The party and its candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors for another quarter. ... In 2014, the median income of households in Democratic districts was higher than in Republican districts, $53,358 to $51,834. Democrats represent seven of the 10 most affluent districts, measured by household income (four in California, two in Virginia and one in New York). Democrats also represent a majority of the 100 most affluent districts, 54-46 . Second, let's look at actual "very rich" - top billionaires. Here's Fortune's list of billionaires who supported Clinton Looking down Forbes richest list : Bill Gates Exact political views aren't widely known overall (but is definitely socially liberal, with most of his extremely huge philanthropy set to benefit 3rd world and alleviate poverty). The most factual approach is to go off his political donations which go more to Democrats than Republicans . Evidence points to him being a Democrat supporter ( Hinting at supporting Clinton ; attending Obama fundraiser and expressing support for Obama ) Warren Buffet Registered Democrat, supported and endorsed both Obama and Clinton, donates more to DNC. Jeff Bezos Democrat supporter Amancio Ortega He's from Spain, no idea of his politics. Casual googling didn't help Mark Zuckerberg I admit this surprised me. I expected him to be an outspoken Democrat, but he's registered as neither, was publicly quoted explicitly stating he's neither, and donated to both parties. Most reports are ambiguous ( 1 ; 2-Wiki ); but he's clearly socially liberal in his views, regardless of political party leanings. [1] - insert my usual rant that "left" and "right" are often merely meaningless vague labels and single-axis model doesn't adequately explain political ideology. Having said that, in a system with 2 or 3 major parties like US and UK, the parties themselves CAN be labeled as more or less left-or-right [2] - In short, the "certainty" asserted in the updated text of the answer is anything BUT certain. Higher taxation doesn't necessarily benefit the poor ( Laffer curve , the OECD-documented negative effects of corporate taxes on GDP ). Also, history seems to show that countries where the Left won and established socialism, ended up with nightmarishly low standards of living for the poor, far less than that of capitalist Western countries' poor anywhere not using oil exports to pump up living standards artificially (USSR except 1970s, Venezuela post-Chavez, North Korea, pre-Deng China). | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23062",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9362/"
]
} |
23,135 | Reported in Donald Trump bans transgender people from serving in the military President Trump tweeted: “After consultation with my Generals and
military experts, please be advised that the United States Government
will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any
capacity in the U.S. Military. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and
cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption
that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.” What medical costs would incur by allowing trans people in the military? My understanding would be that the transition a man would make to a woman or vice versa would be covered by their own expenses/insurance as it's a choice of their own accord? Would the military be obligated to pay for the transition? If not, what medical costs is he on about? | Medical If your question is: Would the military be obliged to pay for the transition? Then the answer is yes. Prior to Donald Trump's tweets, the US Military had promulgated guidance on how it would support members transitioning. Following a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the Military member would be supported through medical treatments, to include hormones and the eventual surgeries, and be allowed to practice acting like their intended gender. Once further along in the process, their gender would be administratively changed in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System, and then they'd be treated per their intended gender in all things, to include uniform requirements, berthing assignments, billeting, etc. That being true, the question providing amplifying guidance, If not, what medical costs is he on about? Does not apply. Disruption Now, if we look to Donald Trumps tweets, specifically the one referencing medical costs , it doesn't stop there: "....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you" The medical costs, while concerning, aren't the strongest issue with members of our all volunteer uniformed service. The other disruptions aren't accounted for, such as: work-hours lost due to disability, additional demands placed those around the billet impacted, and administrative burden. Finally, there is the impact to military readiness. Additionally, it must be noted that military doctrine isn't written to cover every corner case, and certainly not .1 to .5 percent of the serving population. Work hours lost For the duration of the transitioning period, the member is waived from a majority of physical qualification requirements ( table 6.1 ), and also placed on limited duty. If the service member is in a physically demanding job, they can't do their job. If the side effects of the drugs impact the mental readiness of the service member and they carry special certifications or clearance, they may be dis-certified from continuing in that billet. Is every service member a grunt on the front lines? Obviously not. However; every Marine, by the nature of doctrine, is a rifleman; every underway sailor, is a fireman; I can't tell you what every member of the Air Force/Army is. That is why the services have physical fitness standards. For male-to-female, with the expected loss in muscle mass, there remains a concern that they'll be able to meet the new standards. For female-to-male transitions, while there is a gain muscle mass, will it be enough to meet the new standards? Even further, there is the differences in blood-oxygen absorption rates, bone density and skeletal structure, and other gains influenced by developing as a genetic male. Are there women that can meet and exceed the physical fitness standards? Certainly, but policy isn't written for the outliers, and must not be. Statistical averages, and overall efficiency, are the norm. However, it isn't like being transgender is the only discovered medical condition that will get people excused from their current billet or the service overall. For comparison, here is a quotation from the MANMED manual on the general items that could disqualify an individual from service in the nuclear field. Taking medication for migraines is enough to lose the ability to serve in a plant. "Any condition, combination of conditions, or treatment which may impair judgment or alertness, adversely affect reliability, or foster a
perception of impairment is disqualifying. Nuclear field personnel returning to duty following an absence of greater than 7 days due to illness or injury,
hospitalization for any reason, or after being reported on by a medical board must have a properly documented UMO or RAM evaluation to determine fitness for continued nuclear field duty." Additional Demand If unable to execute the demands of their job, that work must be taken up by others. This increases the strain placed upon the affected unit, beyond which is already being experienced by other stressers. Administrative Burden There is an extensive administrative burden placed upon the command in supporting a transitioning service member, to include berthing arrangement, paperwork processing, convening medical boards, mitigating the negative impact to the command. There is the other resultant trouble of possible idiots in the command, but that sis an ever present issue anyway. While being provided hormonal treatment, if male to female, they are losing muscle mass and becoming less effective soldiers. This is detrimental to the intended design of the United States Military, delivering a powerfully lethal fighting force as the ultimate projection of US diplomatic power. Editorial #: For clarity, it is not the intention of this answer to defend or advance banning transgender persons from serving in armed services of these United States. If an individual so inclined can meet the requirements for their current gender and the desired billet, they are welcome to risk life and limb for country. With an all volunteer force that averages 1% of the population, more people joining increases the flexibility of the forces. Individuals should be allowed to join prior to, or after, transitioning to their preferred gender; however, the diversion of limited military funding, man hours, and attention while they are in the military is deleterious to the design intention of the force. As negligible as the RAND study claims those impacts to be, they still make the armed forces less efficient overall. To be heartless, why should the military fund an elective/corrective procedure for military personnel that doesn't directly benefit the military? There is not a valid comparison between transitioning active duty members and the medical care provided to veterans. The military does not fund every medical procedure for every veteran, but to properly evaluate the groups separately: those who left the military prior to retirement, and those who retired from the military or were medically retired from the military due to being found physically unfit for continued service. In the former, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) intentions are to cover service related injuries. Mess up your joints/back in the service, to X percentage of disability, and the VA covers you. In the later, it is seen as an incentive to make a career in the military, to maintain vital human capital, or to directly treat those grievously injured while in service. This is the return on the check you signed upon joining, payable with your body and life. In truth, the majority of the military doesn't care about race, gender, orientation, etc. Can you do the job? Do you keep me from dying? Then carry on. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23135",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11264/"
]
} |
23,184 | Can the Republican Party write another bill later to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act again? Or is it here to stay? | Theoretically, the Republicans can try to repeal it again, as many times and for as long as they want - or at least until they get thrown out of office by mad voters. In practice, the longer it's around, the more political capital will be required to repeal it, and thus the less likely it'll get repealed. Republicans standing against their own camp on grounds that their own voters might lose their insurance is a telling sign that this is occurring today. That being said, what the administration could also do - and in fact, already started to do - is try to sabotage it in some way or another. For instance by trying to defund it somehow, by adding a few layers of red tape, etc. The point being, if they somehow manage to set things up so the ACA is almost guaranteed to look like a failure (if only by a few criteria) a few years down the road, then they could gather enough momentum to try to repeal it again when it does. (Or maybe, as Trump tweeted, it'll implode all by itself.) | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23184",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15784/"
]
} |
23,187 | First -- Please, if there is a challenge to the frame of the question, go that route. I don't know what I'm talking about here -- So I'll try not to take corrections to heart. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a divisive and complex piece of legislation with several components. In the talk of repeal politicians have promised to preserve parts of it and eliminate others. There are a few that are widely praised (Letting children stay on their parents insurance longer, Forcing coverage for preexisting conditions), a few that are somewhat accepted (Minimum care standards, caps on what the elderly can be forced to pay) and a few that are derided by almost all opponents of the ACA, such as the individual mandate. My question is, I've always been under the impression that without the individual mandate, generally healthy individuals who wouldn't otherwise purchase insurance as on rolls, the things like the preexisting coverage and allowing children to stay on their parents insurance longer couldn't be realistically funded . Getting rid of the individual mandate without getting rid of the some of the other regulations just doesn't add up. How can politicians promise to keep the ups and ditch the downs? | You are overthinking this. The individual mandate is unpopular because it penalizes people who want to spend their money on something other than health insurance. Worse, it is a regressive tax, as the people who don't have insurance are primarily low income. High income people almost always have employer-provided health insurance. In 2007 and 2008, a Democratic candidate for president ran against the individual mandate. As the Atlantic monthly said: Obama held that position throughout the campaign. Elect Hillary, he said, and the government will compel you to buy health insurance. Elect me, and I'll give you lower costs and let you keep your freedom. Beyond all that, the individual mandate isn't large enough to actually force people to buy insurance. The mandate starts at about $700 a year (2.5% of income) and average insurance costs about $3700 a year without subsidies. The cheapest insurance costs $1800 a year. For example, the New Yorker says: For political reasons, however, the penalty for flouting this "individual mandate" was set at a very low initial level, which is supposed to grow gradually. It's hard to defend a program that costs comparatively poor people money and doesn't work because it doesn't charge enough money. And the simple fact is that politicians are not encouraged to take and justify tough stances. They would far rather talk about goodies than costs. So Democrats discuss goodies like Increased coverage percentages (total people covered). Increased insurance coverage (type of procedure). Coverage of preexisting conditions. And Republicans discuss costs like Budgetary impact. Increased taxes. Increased premiums. It should be obvious that the goodies and costs go together. But politics doesn't lend itself to nuanced arguments. Perhaps covering preexisting conditions and more procedures is worth a 20% increase in premiums. But rather than making that argument, Democrats (e.g. Barack Obama) claimed that premiums were going to go down . Everyone likes falling premiums. Voters are accustomed to being told that they can have their cake and eat it too. Unfortunately, that's not how reality works. You say I've always been under the impression without the individual mandate generally healthy individuals who wouldn't otherwise purchase insurance as on rolls, the things like the preexisting coverage and allowing children to stay on their parents insurance longer couldn't be realistically funded. Note that this reads a bit misleadingly. The individual mandate provides a trivial amount of revenue, about $1.5 billion a year. Spending per year on health insurance subsidies is $660 billion . The general argument is that without the mandate, the preexisting condition coverage would get more expensive. This is because people could just wait until they get sick (a preexisting condition) and then buy insurance. But the mandate is not a funding mechanism for the government. People avoiding the mandate penalty increases funding for insurance companies. Of course, there's no real measure of how many people wouldn't buy insurance except for the mandate. The mandate shouldn't impact children staying on parental insurance costs. In fact, it's more the reverse. Children on parental insurance is another way to avoid paying the mandate penalty. It makes it less likely that there are insurance lapses and keeps the preexisting condition premium down. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23187",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7004/"
]
} |
23,237 | Recently, the US president posted yet another tweet , stating that: If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon! The second part of this tweet caught my attention. From what I interpret it, the president would like to punish the members of Congress financially for not passing a law that he approves. This had me wondering if the US president is able to unilaterally hurt the members of Congress financially. Would this be part of his executive powers and what would be the mechanism to obtain such a result? I am only asking if and how Trump could substantiate his threat. I am not asking if it would be a wise or realistic thing to do. | Can he directly attack their pay check as members of Congress? No. It is not within the president's enumerated powers to confiscate, redirect, or withhold their pay check. Can he engage the agencies of the Executive department to damage them in their home state? Yes. Just look at the threats he made against Sen. Lisa Murkowski following her vote. Threats ranged from delaying Federal Projects in their state, to stalling oil drilling. Can he make it hard for them to remain in congress? Yes. He has threatened Representative Sanford of South Carolina, and others, with supporting a primary challenger against them. He made a thinly veiled threat against Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, while he was sitting beside him. Can he affect the funding provided by the Republican Party, Congressional Leadership Fund, et al? Not really, but his output can chill the waters. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23237",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/12222/"
]
} |
23,253 | The U.S. Constitution states The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided. I understand that if a Senator's vote is "Present" then it counts as a "No" in the tally, but what if the Senator doesn't attend the vote. There are votes in the Senate Vote tallys that do not add up to 100 votes, so it has happened in the past. Vote Counts: YEAs 56
NAYs 39
Not Voting 5 Roll Call Vote 115th Congress - 1st Session Since this vote is not "equally divided" would the Vice President be able to vote (if it was 49-50). Has this been under judicial review in the past? | If a Senator missed a vote (deliberately or not), and all other Senators are present and voting, it would deny the VP the opportunity to break a tie. However, there's no point to deliberately doing this. Senator supports the measure, Senate is 50-49 without them. If the Senator votes, the final vote would be 51-49. The VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy. If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 50-49. The vote passes without their help, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy. Senator supports the measure, Senate is 49-50 without them. If the Senator votes, the final vote would be 50-50. The VP would break the tie, whichever way the VP chooses. Senator is happy if the VP agrees . If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 49-50. The vote fails, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is sad. Senator opposes the measure, Senate is 50-49 without them. If the Senator votes, the final vote will be 50-50. The VP would break the tie, whichever way the VP chooses. Senator is happy if the VP agrees . If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 50-49. The vote passes, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is sad. Senator opposes the measure, Senate is 49-50 without them. If the Senator votes, the final vote will be 49-51. The vote fails, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy. If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 49-50. The vote fails, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy. TL;DR In other words, choosing not to vote can only make a difference if the VP and Senator agree, and can only result in making the Senator sad. There is no scenario where the Senator is better off by not voting. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23253",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15828/"
]
} |
23,261 | With regards to North Korea, the US now come out and say "the time of talk is over" , but what talking has occurred between North Korea and the US? I do not recall reading anything about talks, rather it seems that US have threatened NK all the way from the beginning, imposed sanctions, encouraged Russia and China to do something about NK, etc, etc. What "talks" are being referred to here? Surely a "talk" would be a two-way communication in which North Korea's wishes are taken into account. Making demands and handing out punishments if those demands aren't met certainly does not seem like a "talk" to me. | If a Senator missed a vote (deliberately or not), and all other Senators are present and voting, it would deny the VP the opportunity to break a tie. However, there's no point to deliberately doing this. Senator supports the measure, Senate is 50-49 without them. If the Senator votes, the final vote would be 51-49. The VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy. If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 50-49. The vote passes without their help, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy. Senator supports the measure, Senate is 49-50 without them. If the Senator votes, the final vote would be 50-50. The VP would break the tie, whichever way the VP chooses. Senator is happy if the VP agrees . If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 49-50. The vote fails, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is sad. Senator opposes the measure, Senate is 50-49 without them. If the Senator votes, the final vote will be 50-50. The VP would break the tie, whichever way the VP chooses. Senator is happy if the VP agrees . If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 50-49. The vote passes, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is sad. Senator opposes the measure, Senate is 49-50 without them. If the Senator votes, the final vote will be 49-51. The vote fails, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy. If the Senator does not vote, the final vote would be 49-50. The vote fails, and the VP is not needed to break a tie. Senator is happy. TL;DR In other words, choosing not to vote can only make a difference if the VP and Senator agree, and can only result in making the Senator sad. There is no scenario where the Senator is better off by not voting. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23261",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15416/"
]
} |
23,268 | Every time North Korea tests a rocket or gets closer to building a nuclear bomb, both China and the Western governments release a series of statements about how they're deeply concerned and threatening new sanctions against Pyongyang. But have there been any official statements indicating a point of no return where an invasion into North Korea would begin? On one hand it is obvious launching rockets into the ocean is not enough to trigger a military operation. On the other hand a theoretical nuclear launch onto the Pacific coast of the US would obviously result in a heavy response. But where exactly is the line North Korea must cross? | But where exactly is the line North Korea must cross? Line setting is generally acknowledged as a bad idea. For example, Barack Obama set a red line in Syria about chemical weapons. Then they used chemical weapons. And Obama looked like an idiot when he did not respond with military force. Lines are bad for two reasons. One, they force action if the line is crossed. Two, they let the bad actor step almost to the line without worrying. We will ignore you unless you do such and such is not the best message to send. The bad actor can dance just on the other side of the line, daring you to react. Or if the goal is to get attention, they know that they have to cross the line. Thus setting a line may encourage crossing it under some circumstances. On one hand it is obvious launching rockets into the ocean is not enough to trigger a military operation. This is not at all obvious to me. Given that the stated reason for launching rockets into the ocean is to practice for shooting rockets at people, it seems the obvious time for military action to me. If we wait until after he has killed people or sold nuclear technology to terrorists, history will remember any military action as too late. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23268",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
23,319 | If a law is passed by the Congress, is there a time limit before which the President must either sign it or formally use their veto powers? If yes, what happens if they are not fulfilled? If no, what happens to the law? | The President has 10 days, not counting Sundays, to sign or veto the bill. If he does not take any action within 10 days and Congress is in session, it will automatically become the law. However, if Congress adjourns and the President did not sign the bill, the bill will not become law, it is known as a "pocket veto". This is stated under the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution . A bill becomes law if signed by the President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session . If Congress adjourns before the 10 days and the President has not signed the bill then it does not become law ("Pocket Veto.") If the President vetoes the bill it is sent back to Congress with a note listing his/her reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override the veto by a vote of two-thirds of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers then it becomes law. (emphasis mine) Source: https://votesmart.org/education/how-a-bill-becomes-law#.WYHVG8aPBAY Elaboration on pocket vetoes Pocket veto are not very prevalent in recent years. The most recent pocket veto was under the Clinton administration . For the Obama administration, the status of 5 out of the 12 vetoes is disputed as Obama considered them to be pocket vetoes. However, as he returned the parchments to Congress, the Senate considers them as regular vetoes. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23319",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7476/"
]
} |
23,339 | Earlier today U.S. President Donald J. Trump signed into law H.R. 3364, the "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act." Among other things, this law is known for enforcing additional sanctions on Russia. In a statement to the press (available here ) written after signing this law, President Trump's sentiments were expressed thus (emphasis added): While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and
destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea, and Russia, this
legislation is significantly flawed . In its haste to pass this legislation, the Congress included a number
of clearly unconstitutional provisions. For instance, although I
share the policy views of sections 253 and 257, those provisions
purport to displace the President's exclusive constitutional authority
to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds,
in conflict with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Zivotofsky v.
Kerry . Additionally, section 216 seeks to grant the Congress the ability to
change the law outside the constitutionally required process. The
bill prescribes a review period that precludes the President from
taking certain actions...(continued) Looking at the statement the President seems to have had multiple reservations about this law. Consequently why did he not veto it? | In addition to the problem of veto-proof majorities the others have noted, there's another factor: he can always choose to selectively not enforce or otherwise comply with the portions of the law he deems unconstitutional. Thus he can keep the portions of the law he says he does agree with, while ignoring the allegedly unconstitutional parts (he is obliged to adhere to parts that are constitutional, even if he disagrees with them). If you look up Zivotofsky v. Kerry, this case originates from a law signed by George W. Bush, portions of which he felt were unconstitutional. He simply refused to enforce or otherwise comply with those portions, and this case was the result of that refusal (which was maintained by the Obama administration, during which the suit actually happened). The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the President's position. So Trump can simply opt to ignore or otherwise not enforce certain provisions of the law he thinks are unconstitutional and let it eventually get resolved by the courts (which might not even happen during his administration, due to the particulars necessary to successfully bring a suit in the first place if nothing else). Until court decisions try to force the matter otherwise, the law would basically function in whatever way he says it does. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23339",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15806/"
]
} |
23,393 | Looking at the statistics for the number of public servants in the UK on can see that their numbers are relatively stable over the past 20 years. However it seems strange to me since huge improvements in technology have occurred since that time, which should have made possible to fire a huge number of government employees who were previous dealing with the inefficiencies of paper-based systems. Even services like the police could be reduced in numbers since you can now monitor an entire city from a single office, rather than relying on ever-present foot patrols. So why aren't we seeing large scale reductions in government employment over the past 20 years? Why do we still need so many people managing things instead of computers? | There are two separate effects caused by making it easier to process paperwork. The one that you identified is that it takes less work to process the paperwork that had been required previously. The other effect is that it makes it easier to add more paperwork. If they add enough additional paperwork requirements, that offsets the reduction in the effort to process the old requirements. Another problem is that an increased ability to produce paperwork works for both sides. It's easier for the criminal to produce fake paperwork. So the government needs more paperwork to check that the paperwork is valid. Before computers, you would have to store all that paper as paper. Huge, giant file cabinets. With computers, you can store much more paperwork. Scan it in and one hard drive can hold a file cabinet's worth of paperwork. With eFile, you may not even have to scan the paperwork. TL;DR : there's more paperwork now than there was before computers. Even services like the police could be reduced in numbers since you can now monitor an entire city from a single office, rather than relying on ever-present foot patrols. This is completely backwards. The point of foot patrols is not to "monitor" the city. We haven't needed that since phones became omnipresent. The point of foot patrols is to show presence. So criminals go, "Oh, I just saw a police officer. Maybe now isn't the best time to steal that lady's purse." Or deal drugs. Or whatever. We still don't have a technology that really replaces that (although there is some work on security robots). That's another problem with viewing technology as simplifying things. A side effect of foot patrols was that people could report crimes directly to the foot patrols. But the real purpose was to signal to people that the police cared. If you entirely take away the monitoring role from the police, there is still a need to signal caring. In addition, any response to monitoring requires police. The foot patrols mean that there are officers right there. What do officers do when there aren't calls? Hide in some remote location? Or openly patrol the city, on foot? Most aspects of life that can be automated are just part of the process. Even if you take away the entirety of the portion that can be automated, we still have the other portions. And many times, the other portions are nearly as much work as before the automation. Take water samples for an example. We can automate pouring the water into a testing machine. We can automate printing out and distributing the reports. But what we can't automate is having a trusted person drive out to the location that needs tested, collect the water, and send it to the testing location. Even if we could automate that, we can't automate checking that the automating equipment hasn't been compromised. Pull the equipment out of the stream and put it in a bucket instead. Then you can produce as much pollution as you want. The automation happily generates reams of fake paperwork. To fix that, we send a person out to the location who checks that the sensor is in the stream and not a bucket. That person tests the sensor and puts it back. Then takes a water sample, labels it, and sends it to the testing location. Which of course is exactly the job that we were trying to automate away. Worse, a significant portion of that job is travel. And travel isn't helped much by skipping every other location. Net effect of technology: Expensive new equipment. Increased reach (more samples taken). Modest decrease in people doing the original job, as auditing the remote results takes a substantial portion of the work. New work is required to maintain the automation. We had a similar issue with gasoline. Gasoline efficiency (measured in gallons per mile) doubled. But gasoline usage stayed the same. People used the same amount of gasoline but increased their commute distance instead. Increased efficiency doesn't necessarily lead to decreased usage. It only does so if we are satisfied with the same output. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23393",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
23,403 | As a programmer I'm comfortable with using version control and bug trackers, but how do politicians keep track of "issues"? Do they have any digital tools which allow them to work together on the same problem? There are giant software projects which coordinate many programmers efficiently by issue tracking and issue assigning/tagging etc. e.g. on GitHub If every politician had some kind of GitHub account it would be pretty transparent as well, if they could answer on issues made by all kinds of people (and non-public areas as well of course, since some stuff just needs to be handled in secret). I ask because currently I'm watching a YouTube video explaining the Cum/Ex tax hole which caused damage of around 31,000,000,000 Euros. And some politicians were even informed by a banking association. But the bug/tax hole was open way too long. It seems to me that a good bug tracker with the responsible people working with it would solve such an issue way faster by allowing people to collaborate on such problems in a structured manner with all the needed people in one digital place (e.g. law makers/politicians, bankers, professionals who understand the problem). In short: do politicians leverage digital tools to increase collaboration? If not, how do they do it? Emails and phone calls? Wait till everybody has time or is available for a meeting? That sounds way too slow and unprofessional. | Politicians, that is to say, the people that we elect, do not actually do the work of the government. Their primary job is raising funds and encouraging people to vote for them. Legislation is mostly written by their staff. If a politician participates in writing legislation, it's not as a developer submitting changes to legislative review. It's as a manager, writing out a few lines of direction that do not work as actual law. The actual developers (staff) are then expected to fix that. I doubt that most legislation writers use the same version control as is used for software. Unlike software, legislation is written in normal language. It has one hard line break per paragraph rather than one per statement. They are far more likely to use the revision control built into something like Microsoft Word. That is less about collaboration with a central source and more about seeing who made what changes when. It's also more consistent with how they've done it historically. Programming benefits from having everyone involved familiar with computers. It's natural that it's on the cutting edge. Even with that, Git only dates to 2005 and Subversion to 2000 (source: Wikipedia ). Older systems like SCCS and RCS only worked with changes by line, which as previously noted would have ended up being paragraphs in legislation. Note that staff works full time on whatever legislation. They operate in small collaborative groups that actually can meet with each other to write legislation. In particular, in the United States, committees have their own staff that are true subject matter experts. You mention Europe, which may operate differently. But I suspect that it doesn't. Legislation written in public in version control would be a great idea for transparency. Unfortunately, most politicians are more interested in getting reelected than transparency. You can see this in California (US), where there is a system allowing law changes by public referendum. Politicians are endlessly, albeit privately, complaining about how these make their jobs more difficult. So any progress towards transparency tends to be made in fits and starts by newer legislators. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23403",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15926/"
]
} |
23,485 | Pretty much every developed country I am aware of spends a considerable amount of money every year on supporting their sports teams, theaters, cinemas, museums and countless other forms of entertainment. Usually this is done under the assumption that those industries would fail without the government's support, so funding must continue no matter what. But are there any developed countries that avoid such expenses and leave it up to the free market to see if those industries can survive or not? | No. There are several reasons for this (some are more applicable than others to specific industry or country): First, on nation-state and international level, entertainment/sports is a tool of soft power. Sports brings prestige to the country. This is especially visible in things like Olympics (where, contrary to the whole Olympic spirit, the main thing anyone ever does is count how many medals any country gets). Sometimes, there's deeper political meaning imbued into this, such as the famous "Miracle on Ice" US/USSR 1980 Olympic hockey game. This is less of a factor in USA; but most developed countries in the world spend lots on basic sports infrastructure (fields, training centers, sports schools, pokemon gyms ). "Culture" is an important tool to maintain a country's sovereignty - both internationally and internally. This is very visible in, for example, France. They spend a lot of effort and thus money to support native movie industry, and culture in general. Russia under Putin does this a lot as well (the results are, at best, questionable, but state propaganda always carps how the latest state-sponsored vehicle for corruption ...errr... blockbuster film is " better than Hollywood " - it's not even about culture in itself, it's always about beating Hollywood) Second, there are purely domestic concerns: Sports/entertainment is an industry. As such, it can and does, lobby on its own behalf with the government. In some cases, the arguments they present are economic ones ("build a stadium here and you will get economic boost and thus raise tax revenue and employment"). This is even more notable with movie industry; where (there was a NPR Money podcast on the topic within last year) states and countries compete in who can lure more studios/production/special effects to their locale via tax breaks/subsidies etc... Entertainment is popular; and as such represents political power for that interest groups. As a clear-cut example, witness everyone yelling any time US government thinks about cutting funding to PBS, NPR, NEA etc... - there's a wave of discontent from their consumers who prefer to use Other People's Tax Money to support the arts, instead of their own. More cynically, people always want " panem et circenses " - bread and enterainment . Since the days of Rome. And the rulers have always realized that it's much cheaper and easier to placate the populace with "Look at our marvelous national team winning!" than with "Oh, we raised everyone's standard of living 10%". Part of the underlying reason for this is that, in most of entertainment, it's kind of a barbell situation economically - the very few super winners on high end make most of the profits; but the vast majority is fully economically unsustainable. Without patron support (which used to be wealthy nobles, and now includes The State), most entertainment couldn't survive as economically viable enterprise. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23485",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7434/"
]
} |
23,490 | If I were to buy a plot of land here in Britain and managed to bring in enough citizens to start our micronation, and we then built enough buildings, and had a supply of food and water, would we able to establish our own laws seperate from those of British laws? At what point is the theoretical micronation able to establish its own laws? | The question is not "When can you enforce your laws on your land?", the question is "When can you prevent the United Kingdom from enforcing their laws on your land?". That's the case if any of these is true: You have an army strong enough to keep the UK government forces out of your country (being an armed insurgency would likely not yet give you international recognition but would make you capable of enforcing your laws nevertheless) You have an agreement with the UK which says that they grant you independence (like they offered to Scotland if they hadn't voted to remain) You have found international allies which formally recognize your nation and are able and willing to defend it against claims from the UK. Good luck convincing some notable international powers that siding with you is more beneficial to them than siding with the UK. If you would not be against the UK you could also try to get the majority of the UN member-states to recognize you and make a resolution defending your sovereignty, but the UK is a veto-power in the UN security council, so in this case it's the same as point 2. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23490",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/14439/"
]
} |
23,528 | In recent news in Australia, the Government is planning a postal survey of the electorate's attitudes to Same-Sex Marriage. Attempts to make it a formal plebiscite failed. There are people with objections to the process, claiming it is unconstitutional, unfair, unnecessarily expensive and/or divisive. Some of those people are calling for a boycott. I am dubious that a boycott, even if well-followed, would successfully subvert the poll. I am wondering if such a boycott has ever been successful in undermining such a result. So my question is about political history: Has there ever been a successful boycott of a major election/vote? By major, I mean, say, 50,000 voters or more. Happy to hear about anything close. By successful, I mean undermined the public trust of the results sufficiently so the winner could not successfully claim a mandate, take leadership, pass the law - whatever the vote was about. Given this isn't a formal election, but a postal survey, I'll accept anything close to an election. I want to understand if elector boycotts are a powerful tool of protest, or just wishful thinking. | In the United States (including territories), Puerto Rico recently held a referendum about officially declaring for statehood. 97% of the votes were to become a state. But turnout was only 23%, as most of the population boycotted the vote; essentially the only group that didn't call for a boycott were those who wanted to become a state. So the vote was entirely a reflection of that one opinion, and not the clear will of the people. Note, however, that the referendum was intrinsically non-binding. Only the US congress can formally declare a new state. It was meant to get such a process rolling by making the interests of the populace clear, though Congress was well aware of this movement and had previously allocated funds for the referendum to be held. There has been no official response from the US government concerning this referendum. However this is not the first referendum of this nature, as there was one in 2012 as well. And this one should fit your criteria pretty nicely. This referendum was also heavily criticized by much the same factions (the PPD namely), and they called for people to submit blank or invalid ballots. The 2012 referendum had a high turnout, but the vote ended up with approximately a half million blank ballots submitted. This made the will of the people less than clear. As a result, Congress decided to ignore the vote. Presumably the boycott of the latest referendum will be interpreted in a similar fashion. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23528",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8487/"
]
} |
23,538 | I realize the title of this question is a bit odd and apparently counter-intuitive, and might give someone a good chuckle, but bear with me for a second. The People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, also known as North Korea) are long-time allies, and spent the latter part of the 20th century united by being communist countries outside the Soviet bloc (with China seeking to become a "third power"). Importantly, DPRK has also acted and maintains its role as a buffer state between China and the US-aligned South Korea. However, it is my understanding that: The chances of a conflict involving North Korea under the current regime and the US are growing monotonically China probably does have no incentive in entering a costly war with the United States, at the very least not in this decade . Even if China keeps neutral, it would probably not want to have a philoamerican government installed in North Korea, for obvious reasons. Even if China keeps neutral, I believe it would deem undesirable to have American troops that close to home for the duration of a conflict. China has so far been unable to defuse tension in the area through ordinary diplomatic action. It seems to me that, simply because the other alternatives are worse, China would have good reason to urgently install a new regime or government in DPRK, through: diplomatic action espionage, or even... full-on military action In fact, I would be inclined to think the optimum from a Chinese point of view would be staging or supporting a coup to remove the current leader along with high ranking officials while still keeping the WPK in charge, while, of course, denying all involvement. What are the disincentives for China in doing that, and what are the superior alternatives? | Not a complete answer, but elements of thoughts: Even if China could somehow kill Kim Jong Un and get away with it, would that mean the collapse of NK regime? After all, it has survived the successive deaths of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il without major changes in its shape. NK can be a pain in the neck for China, but it sure is a bigger problem for the US and SK, and that might suit China's agenda somehow. Even if NK regime collapses for X reason, it is very hard to say what would replace it. China wouldn't want a failed state on its border, nor a new government that might welcome the US, nor a massive immigration of starving north Koreans, nor undefined groups to get control of nuclear weapons. As you point in a comment "a US-DPRK conflict would be most undesirable for China". I agree with that and China policy in Korea is precise to avoid any war. That's why their diplomacy towards NK is fluctuating between sanctions and cooperation depending on Kim's bravado or US reactions. And the best way to avoid war might not be to try and kill a foreign leader. The main reason is probably the one given by @SJuan76 in a comment: overthrowing a foreign leader is not an easy, risk-free operation, especially if there are nuclear weapons involved. Here is a detailed article about China's position, incentives and policy towards North Korea, for anyone who can read French : https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/un-voisin-menacant-chine/00079881 | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23538",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/8244/"
]
} |
23,595 | From @PacificCommand Secretary Tillerson met with two key strategic allies - #Australia and #Japan - for trilateral strategic talks. Japan has been largely pacifist since WWII. During Gulf War I, Japan's contribution mainly consisted of financial support, and for Gulf War II, Japan send some unarmed soldiers that Australian soldiers had to protect. It also hosts US military bases, and pays some of the cost involved, but I assume the stated purpose of those bases are to protect Japan. And Japan and the US espouse similar values (capitalism, rule of law, and democracy), but I'm not aware of those things making two countries allies. Why does the US government call Japan an ally, let alone a "key strategic ally"? | Japan and Australia are both MNNAs (major non-NATO ally) Japan allows the US to have large bases on its territory, that alone makes it a major ally. The ability to station troops, aircraft and harbour battleships in Japan is of strategic importance in the American policy of military superiority in the Pacific. To allow a foreign power to station its military in your own country is about the closest two countries can be allied. This is much more significant the merely fighting on the same side in a war. Japan and the US engage in intelligence sharing, joint training, share technological know-how. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23595",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/270/"
]
} |
23,627 | After Japan surrendered to Allied forces in 1945, the Potsdam Declaration required Japanese military forces to be disarmed, limited Japanese sovereignty to specific islands, and prohibited Japanese industries from rearming the country for war (among other things). The Treaty of San Francisco (which officially declared peace between the U.S. and Japan and ended the American occupation) recognized Japan as a sovereign nation and allowed Japan to create a security force for its own defense, but reiterated that it could not arm itself to be an offensive threat. Both the surrender and the peace treaty are pretty vague about when and how they should expire. Here we are 70+ years later, Japan is the world's third largest economy and has the world's 11th largest population. It has been a self-governing independent nation since the 1950's. And yet, it still does not have its own military. It does have the Self-Defense Forces (SDF), which is a de facto army, navy, and air force. But officially they are only a defensive force. The Japanese Constitution contains the declaration that: ... the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. And also: ...land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. However, this text was directly written by the United States after the war. Given the recent tensions with North Korea, and China's brazen claim to pretty much the entirety of the South China Sea, can the Japanese legally build an offensive military force to counter those threats? Would they be able to fight alongside other countries if (God forbid) a war broke out with North Korea or China? In other words, are they pacifists by choice, or are they still bound by their terms of surrender and the treaties they signed? | Yes Pacta sunt servanda , agreements must be kept. The Treaty of San Francisco is 70 years old which is young compared to many older treaties. Agreements have a few "outs," neither of which are valid in Japan's case: Duress : Agreements signed under duress can sometimes be nullified. Japan could perhaps be said to be under duress from the United States. As any unconditional surrender is likely at least partially due to duress. But as far as I know, the duress argument does not work at all for state parties. Rebus sic stantibus : This is similar to the concept of force majeure . The state argues that unforeseen events have made the treaty inapplicable. However, this doctrine is seen as very limited in scope as it otherwise would make it very easy for states to escape from their obligations. Japan could perhaps argue that the nuclear armament of North Korea is such an unforeseen event. I don't think that argument holds merit because Japan at the time of its unconditional surrender had already been bombed twice by nuclear weapons. Therefore, that a nearby power could acquire such weapons could not possibly qualify as a "fundamental change of circumstances." Law of State Succession : If a state succeeds another, it is not necessarily bound by all treaties that the previous state signed. For example, after the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union claimed that it was a new state, distinct from the Russian Empire, and that it therefore wasn't bound by the treaties that the previous state had signed. Neither this out is applicable to Japan. It is clearly the same state as it was when the San Francisco treaty was signed. So yes, Japan is bound by the treaty. But the treaty text is open to interpretation. Constitution vs treaties Note that the relevant article of the Potsdam declaration reads: Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. This is the article Japan is bound to by international law. The Japanese constitution, on the other hand, states: Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. But articles of constitutions have no bearing on international law. They are better viewed as "treaties" between the state and the people of that state. Although it would certainly annoy their neighbors, Japan is free to do whatever it wants with its constitution as it is an entirely domestic matter. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23627",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9351/"
]
} |
23,667 | Today, President Trump claimed that there was violence on "both sides," and that alt-left and alt-right both shared blame in the incidents at Charlottesville, Virginia. Is this factually accurate? I'm not aware of any alt-left protestors being arrested, nor have seen any alt-left protesters attacking alt-right protesters. | Bottom Line Up Front Yes, there was violence perpetrated by both AntiFa and the White Supremacists. Ben Shapiro's show the day after properly highlights the violence on each side (specific parts showing violence will be referenced below). That there was violence on one side does not dismiss or excuse the violence on the other side. That there was violence on both sides does not excuse the domestic terrorism incident perpetrated via vehicular murder. Making it Abundantly Clear Many are highlighting a difference in the magnitude of the violence that was perpetrated by both sides, as if to insinuate that because the member of one side committed vehicular murder, the severity of the violence by the other side is lessened. This establishes a logical fallacy. To start, consider the course of events without the pinnacle of violence: each side had actors that engaged in violent interactions with the other. There are demonstrable acts of mob tendencies from each side, where a mass of group B descended on an individual from group A. The crimes of each side are repugnant. Vehicular Murder Then an individual drove a car through a crowd of people that opposed him, drastically escalating the level of force being used. Yes, this was heinous. Yes, it should be thoroughly dismissed as a repugnant act that has no place in civilized discourse. However, it doesn't dismiss or lessen the preceding illegality. There was wrong on each side; this was just more wrong. This was a grievous example of domestic terrorism. Warned in Advance As reported by Politico , the Virginia Governor and Charlottesville mayor were warned in advanced of the potential for violence at the protest, from both the white supremacists and the anarchists, representatives of the extreme of either side. The Aug. 9 report by the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis was done in coordination with local, state and federal authorities at the Virginia Fusion Center. It stated that white supremacists and anti-fascist “antifa” extremists had clashed twice before in Charlottesville, at a white nationalist rally on May 13 and a Ku Klux Klan gathering July 7. At each event, “anarchist extremists” attacked protesters who had been issued permits, leading to fights, injuries, arrests and at least two felony charges of assault and battery. Violence in Context In the possibility that there is an implication from Trump's statements that the violence from either side is equivocal, it is important to fully establish the context in which the violence took place. This includes describing the nature of the violence, estimating the quantity of the violence, and considering the possibility that some of the violence was performed in self defense. Prior to the in depth analysis, focus on the Charlottesville Police Chief, who openly stated in press conference following the violence that the different groups were " mutually combative. " This will be everything but the murder, covered above. Nature of The event was scheduled to start at noon, but had to be canceled at 11.30 am due to the swelling level of violence. The Unite the Right rally was scheduled to start at noon but it never happened. By 11:30 a.m., with demonstrators and counter-protesters fighting in the streets, Charlottesville and Albemarle County officials declared a state of emergency and later declared the rally an illegal assembly, slowly clearing the park Members of each side in this conflict open carried firearms at this protest ( A legal activity in Virginia ), depicted by these self proclaimed AntiFa or these Militia Men wearing shirts with Confederate Flags. Thankfully, Governor McCaulif stated in a NPR interview that no shots were fired during the event, though there are contradictory claims. Skirmish weapons were also on hand, as reported by the Daily Progress ( pay wall ), and referenced by the New York Mag : “It could have been a lot worse today,” said Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas. “The premeditated violence is deplorable.” Both sides came prepared for violence, wearing protective helmets, masks and carrying flags. When violence broke out, many of the flags were stripped from the wood handles and the handles were used as clubs. Both sides brought street medics equipped with bandages and fluids for flushing eyes and skin afflicted with pepper spray. This can be seen here , where the Alt-Right is marching with shields, helmets, and flags; in response, a fight breaks out between Antifa and the front line. Regrettably, who threw the first punch is obscured by the crowd. At another point , the Alt-right regroup, and are commanded back into action, shields and clubs used to batter the crowd. One of the counter protestors, Jacob L. Smith , punched a Reporter Taylor Lorenz from The Hill for taping the events. A New York Times Reporter, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, tweeted : The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding "antifa" beating white nationalists being led out of the park 2/2 This lasted up until the backlash that she was "creating an equivalency." African American individual utilized an improvised flamethrower against a large group of Alt-Right. His story, presented by the Independent , sets the premise that he had attended the protest to heckle the Alt-Right, including claims that a gun was held to his head and a shot was fired at his feet. At a later point during the event, he was involved in an altercation where he used a spray can he found on the ground and a lighter in his pocket to hold off the crowd. This order of events (brandished firearm, discharged firearm, lunging with flag, and employment of improvised flame thrower), are disproved by a video released by the ACLU of Virginia. In this video, the order of events are depicted as: Crowd is moving through Spray starts from can directed towards faces of protestors People walk away from the spray or cover their mouths Spray is lit on fire, directed towards the protestors Protestor A starts waving flag towards fire Protestor B uses racial epithet, attempts to fire a shot: Gun Malfunction (expect no round chambered) Protestor B manipulates slide, chambering round, fires shot into ground before Counter Protestor using improvised Flame thrower Protestor B retreats. Quantity The current dead - injured - missing values for the event are 3 - more than 36 - 0, as reported by Charlottesville Officials . This includes the tragic helicopter crash (2-0-0), the injuries from the vehicular murder (1-19-0), and individual altercations (0-more than 17-0). This does not account for people that were injured during individual altercations but did not seek medical aid, or associate their request for medical aid with the incident. Regrettably, there isn't a fullness of understanding for that total number of violent altercations. Self Defense It is possible that some of the violence that occurred during this protest was purely self defense. Virginia defines self defense, from charges of Assault or Battery , via common law and court decisions, as: Committing a battery with legal justification: hitting, pushing, scratching, etc. a person who placed you in “reasonable fear” of “imminent danger of bodily harm,” where your actions were “reasonably necessary to protect” yourself. An act that began as self-defense can cross the line into a separate crime of battery if you use excessive or unreasonable force in defending yourself. From the same link, when considering that the police chief said many altercations between both groups were "mutually combative," all of those participants are wrong doers as described by SCOTUS case Rowe V. United States . If an individual was to claim Self Defense as an affirmative defense to charges, it is important that you either didn't instigate the altercation (fighting words, overt threats, etc.) or that you've made a good faith effort to abandon the fight. Domestic Terrorism From the Patriot Act, as understood by the ACLU , our definition is: A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism. Driving a car through a crowd of people that were offering a counter protest to your activities fits this definition. Though it should be noted that the violence as speech from both sides, which lead to the Police force terminating the Unite the Right protest and calling for the groups to disperse, could also fit within this definition. Consider reporting from Politico detailing their activities as "domestic terror violence." This is not a media term; it is the legal definition by which the events of Charlottesville should be judged. All sides aren't violent in a riot; Simplistically there were two sides at this fight, but that doesn't account for the idiots or peaceful folk that joined into the fight with out intentions to resort to violence. this allows for the possibility that: There were leftist protest who were intent on peaceably protesting the Alt-Right Antics. There were some misguided idiots from the right who were there for "free speech" reasons. Note: In today's climate, look who is standing next to you. If you're beside people that embrace white power, you're going to be associated with nazis. Who are the Nazis? In the context of this answer, the Nazis are the violent extremes of the Unite the Right Protest. This includes those chanting Hail Victory, performing the colloquially recognized Nazi Salute, or openly displaying White Supremacy symbolism (white pride flags). This answer rejects the implication that all of the right are Nazis. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23667",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/15576/"
]
} |
23,716 | The Unite the Right rally was ostensibly a protest over the removal of the Robert E. Lee sculpture in Charlottesville, Virginia. While I realize that many protesters used this as an excuse for other ends, I want to focus on the statue itself. Some people seem to be very attached to this statue, and I suppose the person of Robert E. Lee. There seemed to be a similar concern over the removal of a statue of Stonewall Jackson. I want to better understand: what reasons have those that oppose the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee given for opposing its removal? Is it historical interest? An attachment to the Confederate States of America? Something else? Again, I am fully aware that a number of people used this as an excuse to promote other interests, but for those who claim genuine interest in the sculpture's preservation, what are their stated reasons? | There's two general arguments that I've seen tossed around defending the Lee/Confederate statues (at least those not mentioned while chanting with a literal torch in hand) They're historical landmarks - The Lee statue that sparked the Charlottesville incident has stood since 1924. There's a suggestion that this is an attempt to rewrite history by hiding symbols of the Confedracy. This was the line of reasoning used by Donald Trump President Donald Trump invoked such an argument on Tuesday: “This week, it is Robert E. Lee and, this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?” This is, more or less, an extension of the debate started when South Carolina removed Confederate flags after the Dylan Roof racially motivated shooting . The concern is that the momentum created by the recent push to remove these monuments will lead activists to simply make new demands to remove other, less controversial monuments. The Daily Wire noted that, in Oct 2016, Columbus Day protesters demanded the removal of a Theordore Roosevelt statue . In Feb 2017, activists were able to get a statue of Christopher Columbus removed . Recently, Al Sharpton (an outspoken activist) suggested the Thomas Jefferson memorial be defunded . Lee wasn't a racist and/or opposed slavery - This was mentioned by Dinesh D'Souza How ignorant of the left to choose Robert E. Lee--who opposed both slavery & secession--to symbolize the evils of slavery & secession Many have noted, however, that Lee owned and beat his own slaves, and generally supported slavery Lee’s cruelty as a slavemaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.” | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23716",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/6511/"
]
} |
23,741 | There's an implicit assumption here which is that the more exposure you have to the truth about North Korea the more likely you are to defect. With that assumption out in the open, my question is about the North Korean diplomats who live abroad around the world. Presumably it's difficult for North Korea to prevent them absorbing information and media from the outside world. Perhaps their computers are connected to the (unrestricted) internet, or they can use computers outside the embassy. Do we know whether defection from embassies is a problem for North Korea? Do we know whether North Korea implements any measures to prevent it? Is it not a problem because my assumption at the top is incorrect? | There have been a few high-profile ambassadors who did actually defect, the highest being the deputy ambassador in London in 2016 . As user4012's answer speculated, the regime does hold family members hostage. From the article: North Korean diplomats generally must leave one member of their immediate family in Pyongyang — the regime’s insurance against defections — and it was not clear whether Thae had managed to take all of his family with him. I remember hearing a snippet of an interview recently, where he talked about this, as well. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23741",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11506/"
]
} |
23,757 | It is well known that the human sex ratio (men/women) is high in India and China due to gender-based abortion and infanticide (e.g. India and China ). Under certain interpretations of the word, this could well be defined as genocide against women. And yet, I see no mention of this issue on the Feminism Wikipedia entry, nor I am really versed on feminist theories, authors, or magazines to know about this topic. I wonder if there is a branch of feminism which has taken up the cause against sex-selective abortion? On the one hand, you would expect this to be the case, given the cocktail of issues related (poverty and development, patriarchal culture, etc). On the other hand, abortion is considered by feminism as a right of women, so it could be a dangerous territory, particularly when it comes to critiques from anti-abortion groups of society. | I wonder if there is a branch of feminism which has taken up the cause against sex-selective abortion? All branches of feminism are against infanticide, and many are against sex-selective abortions. However, most western feminist groups are unlikely to make it the center of their activism, as it is not a large problem in the west. One example of a feminist speaking out against infanticide as well as sex-selective abortions is Emma Watson , Gloria Steinem also mentions female infanticide as a problem. Regarding the apparent conflict of supporting womens choices and access to proper medical care and the opposition to infanticide and sex-selective abortion: There isn't really one. It is possible to support access to abortions, while also criticizing those that use it in an unmoral way (obviously; the same thing eg happens with guns; you can legally own them, but shouldn't misuse them). In my experience, the discussion about selective abortions happens more often about the rights of disabled people vs the right to abortion (at least in the west), but that would be another question. Wikipedia summarizes Mary Anne Warren - a Feminist and supporter of the right to abortions - , who holds a similar idea: Warren (1985:104) argues that there is a difference between acting within one’s rights and acting upon the most morally sound choice, implying that sex-selective abortion might be within rights but not morally sound. Warren also notes that, if we are to ever reverse the trend of sex-selective abortion and high sex ratios, we must work to change the patriarchy-based society which breeds the strong son preference.[128] The feminist website The F Word argues similarly that instead of restricting abortions, the underlying causes should be fought: I think we also need to recognise that, with regards to female infanticide, the underlying issue is sexism, not access to abortion. Stopping women accessing legal abortions will not stop female infanticide; but challenging sexist social and cultural beliefs may very well do. The paper A feminist analysis of female infanticide provides a perspective from Indian feminists: Female infanticide and female feticide represent serious social problems in India. However, these issues also create much debate over a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have a child. While women in India do have the right to terminate a pregnancy, there are several legal stipulations that make having an abortion less about giving women rights, and more about controlling women’s reproductive capabilities (Menon, 1995). Women often do not choose to have sex-selective abortions; instead their husband and his family pressure them into aborting unwanted female fetuses (Kusum, 1993). Thus, while abortion is legal under specific circumstances, it is often used as a way to selectively breed male children who are preferred in Indian culture. Therefore, many feminists see abortion rights in India as contradictory to feminist discourse because abortion rights are not being used to liberate women, but to re-enforce the cultural preference for sons (Menon, 1995). [...] While the feminist discourse on abortion advocates that abortion is a right over one’s body, sex-selective abortion in itself is a form of female violence. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23757",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/9362/"
]
} |
23,758 | Why are there so many Confederate Statues in the United States ? The Confederate States LOST the Civil War so why are there so many statues to people who tried to break up the country and lost ? I've heard today that there are about 1500 statues around the country. They seem to have been put up long after the war and many (more strangely) in places that weren't part of the Confederate States. Where did all these statues of people who tried to destroy the United States or America but LOST come from? It seems strange to idolize the losing side so much. I can't think of another instance where the losing side is so revered. | A more fruitful question, perhaps is "when" those monuments were erected, which the chart below illustrates, which provides some good inferences about "why" they were erected. Basically, they were symbols of the reassertion of extralegal white supremacist power over blacks in the South, following the enactment of Jim Crow laws , and then a symbol of resistance to Civil Rights laws striking down the Jim Crow regime a number of decades later. As William Faulkner wrote in "Requiem For A Nun": The past is never dead. It's not even past. Even though the South lost the war, the Union was not entirely victorious in its efforts to win over the hearts and minds of white Southerners. In the Reconstruction following the Civil War, later Union leaders like Andrew Johnson (Abraham Lincoln's successor), made only half-hearted efforts to really deeply assimilate the formerly Confederate states into the Union and when Reconstruction ended Confederate and white supremacist sympathies remained strong. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention (the largest religious denomination in the American South) only disavowed racism, segregation and slavery in 1995 . | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23758",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/7481/"
]
} |
23,862 | What do terms like "I yield back" and "I reclaim my time" and "I yield to..." mean? I sorta get it, but am still quite clueless as to the details, let alone any name it may have. | These are technical requirements imposed by the rules of debate . The current rules used by the US Congress are (based on) Robert's rules . Rules of debate are meant to help maintain order and decorum amongst people who may have wildly different opinions on matters, and to facilitate a timely and smooth legislative process. The phrases in particular you mention are relevant to various limits on how many times, when, and for how long a person may speak, and what they are allowed to do with the time they are allotted. If they are permitted to let someone else speak during their time, they may "yield [their time] to" that other entity; if they were already speaking on someone else's time, they may "yield [the remaining time] back to [the original person]". The original speaker would then reclaim their time. In each case "yield" is essentially a synonym for "give to" or "give back". I'll also add that in your title question, the use of "Mr. Speaker" is another one of the formalities of the rules: anyone currently speaking is required to address everything to the Speaker (who controls the debate and chooses the rules). This is meant to prevent personal attacks, which would be easy to fall into on contentious issues. A lot of this is nicely detailed in the following Congressional Research Report from 2016, concerning how time is managed in the House. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23862",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/11787/"
]
} |
23,876 | Often in news articles, I see that IS are referred to as "so-called" Islamic State. For example, in a BBC News article : On Bastille Day last year, along the coast in Nice, more than 80 people were killed when a lorry was driven into celebrating crowds on the seafront in an attack claimed by so-called Islamic State. Why is this prefix used? | The name Islamic State is a claim to a global caliphate . This claim is rejected by everybody else, from western leaders to Muslim leaders , to other Islamic extremists . "so-called" is added to make it clear that this is not an objective or descriptive term, but a self-chosen label which does not reflect the true nature of a group. It happens with other groups and organizations as well, such as "so called alt-right" to make it clear that it is a white supremacist propaganda term, or "so called GDR" to make it clear that it is not actually a democratic republic. | {
"source": [
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23876",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com",
"https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/16328/"
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.