US Elections 2020

[broncofan]

Good arguments on tax from Robert Reich here-

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...os-dimon-cohen

There are some good suggestions here for ways to bring in a lot of tax revenue without a wealth tax. He mentions the fact that in our current code capital gains are eliminated at death...I think every tax plan should at least be getting rid of this.

[blackchubby38]

Even though Pete Buttigieg is leading in both Iowa and New Hampshire, he is polling 0% with black voters in South Carolina. There seems to be this ongoing narrative that he is having a problem with making headway with them in general. Eventually the elephant in the room has to be addressed that maybe homophobia is playing a part in some black voters' feelings toward Buttigieg.

[Stavros]

I did not realize until reading this critique that Elizabeth Warren, like Hillary Clinton, started her political life as a Republican.
Time to re-think this candidate?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ot-progressive

[broncofan]

I did not realize until reading this critique that Elizabeth Warren, like Hillary Clinton, started her political life as a Republican.
Time to re-think this candidate?

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ot-progressive

Would that mean Bernie Sanders is the only person committed to single payer healthcare? I haven't been following closely but I might end up supporting him. I hate to be a single issue voter but I don't understand how we can commit ourselves to a healthcare system that's so ineffective and causes suffering and bankruptcy. One enormous source of inequality in this country is that people are put into financial distress and die young because of our broken system.

I wouldn't mind if she started off as a Republican and has a change of heart to support left-wing policies. But the change of heart has to be real...

[Jericho]

I'll be honest, I'm fucking clueless, when it comes to American politics. Federal, state, party, president. If I was voting for an MP, I would hope that I was in Bernie Sanders constituency.
But, I'm hearing a lot about Andrew Yang, what's his deal?
There should be an Idiots Guide!

[Stavros]

Would that mean Bernie Sanders is the only person committed to single payer healthcare? I haven't been following closely but I might end up supporting him. I hate to be a single issue voter but I don't understand how we can commit ourselves to a healthcare system that's so ineffective and causes suffering and bankruptcy. One enormous source of inequality in this country is that people are put into financial distress and die young because of our broken system.

Bernie Sanders wants the Democrat nomination but sits as an Independent in Congress, one of those peculiarities of the US system that doesn't make sense.
I don't think you will have a single payer health care system for the foreseeable future. Health care in the US is a commercial enterprise, not a public service, and the companies making all the money are far more powerful than were the Medical Associations and the Charities that were responsible for health care in the UK before 1948. Crucially, the weak element in this is the extent to which States Rights will prevent the creation of a single payer Federal Health Care system, had Obama been able to do it, I think it would have emerged by now. The USA is not united anymore, the re-emergence of the Confederacy that in reality never went away, means that not only do Republicans gerrymander districts to prevent the election, even the voting of Democrats, they have sewn up most of the District Courts with Federalist Society acolytes who will reject single payer health care when it is challenged in the Courts.
Real change in the US these days means that Federal law can be re-interpreted locally and in effect be detached from daily life, as has happened with the re-definition of term limits for abortions, and the purge of voter rolls. Add in the simple fact that the Presidency ignores Congress, and even repudiates its right to be involved in decisions that Constitutionally are within its right to decide, and you have what in effect is a Monarchy, or at best a Duarchy if as may emerge, the Supreme Court has only one function, to endorse the decisions of the President. The manner in which the President has made decisions with regard to individual members of the armed forces that directly undermine the legally and morally established processes developed by the military for years is an example of the King's authority: the SEALS can shove their 'Code of Honour' where it hurts, the President/King will make the decisions from now on. He is not Commander-in-Chief for nothing, he is Master and Commander, and must be obeyed.

Either you are witnessing the break up of the Federal Union and the demolition of the three branches of government, or this is a temporary blip and 'normal service will be resumed' in 2020. Or will it?
It seems a lot of Americans rather like the idea of a King who poses in silk panties while wearing boxing gloves, who swears in public and abuses and insults as many Americans -oops, I'm sorry, Human Scum- as he can and as often as he can.

[broncofan]

I'll be honest, I'm fucking clueless, when it comes to American politics. Federal, state, party, president. If I was voting for an MP, I would hope that I was in Bernie Sanders constituency.
But, I'm hearing a lot about Andrew Yang, what's his deal?
There should be an Idiots Guide!

When I first started watching PM questions in 2014, it was like I was a child trying to listen to the cadence and tone to determine who was winning. Whoever's MPs laughed more at their jokes was the winner in my eyes. I read a few articles about the British Parliamentary system and am sure I understood it, but it was gone from my mind within two weeks. That's how it is unless you have people you're constantly talking about it with.

All of the elections that you would hear about in international media for us are federal. State and local governments have a lot of effect over our lives but there's not as much engagement with those elections. One thing I can say is that the results of our congressional elections (senate and house) don't determine who wins the Presidency. So someone can vote for a Republican for Congress and also cast a ballot for a Democrat for President.

I've heard good things about Andrew Yang and he seems like a genuinely nice guy. He's only polling at 3% which is why I don't know very much about him. Probably the best way to see who is offering what is their websites, though I'm too lazy to read them all. You could follow them on twitter, along with a few of each of their supporters and get some info (which is what I do for Kamala Harris and Warren).

Stavros, I tend to agree with you. I've agreed about Bernie, but I want to support a candidate who is going to try to deliver more comprehensive health care. At this point, I would say I'm not sure who I support among Democrats.

[Jericho]

Ok, so am I right in thinking you could have a democrat house and senate, but a republican President (in theory)?
And what about the law, which takes precedent, federal or state?
I'm thinking Federal, it being across all states, but, can state law overturn federal law (stavs post about abortion got me thinking about this)?

[broncofan]

Federal law takes precedence over state law where they both overlap. In order to pass laws, our legislature (the senate and the house of representatives-collectively called Congress) must act pursuant to a grant of power in our federal constitution. These grants of power are stated broadly and when controversial laws are passed they are often challenged as to whether they fit within that grant of power.

States pass laws on issues that relate to the health, welfare, and safety of those in each state. This includes employment regulations, ordinances, and many criminal laws. When a federal law is passed pursuant to a constitutional grant of power and it conflicts with the state law it is said to pre-empt the state law.

There are areas that states have exclusive authority to legislate in. Many crimes that take place entirely within a state and have nothing to do with commercial activity will be matters of state law. Statutes regulating abortion tend to be state law measures. These have generally not been trumped by federal law but ruled to violate a fundamental liberty interest of women and therefore violate our federal constitution (even state laws need to comply with it).

Often it's the case that our Congress and our Presidency is controlled by different parties. I'll give an example using our senate which has 100 senators. Let's say 55 were Republicans and 45 were Democrats, but the President is a Democrat. If the Republican senate passed a law giving tax breaks to the rich by a majority (55-45), it only becomes law if the President signs it into law. The President can veto it, in which case it can only become law if it gets 67 votes (or 2/3). This would require 12 Democrats to vote for it or they have to re-write the bill and try again. All legislation in our system needs to pass by majority vote in both houses of Congress and be signed into law by the President or override a Presidential veto by 2/3 vote.

[broncofan]

can state law overturn federal law (stavs post about abortion got me thinking about this)?

I also used the language in my previous post about states having exclusive jurisdiction to pass laws in certain areas. This doesn't mean that state law trumps federal law, just that Congress has not been given a grant of power to pass laws in that area. If they tried to pass a law in that area, it would be struck down, not because the state law trumps it but because they acted outside of their grant of power.