SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Trump impeached for 'inciting' US Capitol riots:
The US House of Representatives has impeached President Donald Trump for "incitement of insurrection" at last week's Capitol riot.
Ten Republicans sided with Democrats to impeach the president by 232-197.
He is the first president in US history to be impeached twice, or charged with crimes by Congress.
Mr Trump, a Republican, will now face a trial in the Senate, where if convicted he could face being barred from ever holding office again.
But Mr Trump will not have to quit the White House before his term in office ends in one week because the Senate will not reconvene in time.
Mr Trump will leave office on 20 January, following his election defeat last November to Democrat Joe Biden.
The Democratic-controlled House voted after several hours of impassioned debate on Wednesday as armed National Guard troops stood guard inside and outside the Capitol.
[...] Impeachment charges are political, not criminal.
Also at Newsweek, c|net, Al Jazeera, Washington Post.
[Ed Note - The linked article has been revised since submission. The quoted text has been revised accordingly. - Fnord]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by driverless on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:14AM (14 children)
The problem isn't the voting system, it's the environment it runs in. The Soviet Union had a pretty reasonable constitution and a fair voting system (secret polls, universal suffrage, etc), but that didn't make it a good place to live. The problem in the US isn't the electoral system, that's just a symptom, the problem is the electorate. And I don't think anyone has any idea how to fix that. Traditionally it's been done through a reformat and reinstall, typically taking centuries (Roman empire) or a catastrophic loss (Germany).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:42AM (9 children)
You're right, but not for the reasons you posit.
The "environment" that's the problem is our *political* system, not the electorate.
Leaving aside (although we should address that too) first-past-the-post elections, the biggest issue is the role that *money* plays in our political system.
That gives more power to those with more money. There are a bunch of reasons for this. TV ads, lack of transparency (think SuperPACs), corporate lobbying and the inexplicable (and yes, it's true) fact that candidates can *keep* any campaign contributions they don't spend.
By having money at the heart of our political system, we attract the greedy and amoral like flies to shit. The average House member spends about 1/3 of his or her time fundraising for their next election campaign.
If we remove money from the political system (banning lobbyists and *monetary* political donations of any kind), limit the length of campaigns and implement publicly funded election campaigns (this would cost much less than you think), there would be more people who are interested in helping their constituents than raking in the cash.
No. That doesn't address first-past-the-post elections, gerrymandering or the strength of partisan blocs.
We should seriously look at other systems (like Ranked Choice Voting) and professionalized non-partisan redistricting.
National and state parties would lose much of their power if they didn't have all that money to direct to their preferred candidates.
There would be more chances for folks who just want to do good for all of us to get on ballots and succeed.
And the electorate would have a wider selection of voices to from which to choose.
Would that solve all our problems? No, that requires more serious action [youtube.com].
But it can make a real difference. And most of that has to be done at the state and local levels. Let's do this thing!
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:04AM (2 children)
At best it would make bugger-all difference - just as the determined programmer can write FORTRAN IV in any language, so the electoral climate in the US can make a mess of any political system. Canada also has FPP, and they don't have anything like the issues the US has. Conversely, Italy has proportional representation and they're a mess. Changing the electoral system is just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, it's a distraction from the real issues. As long as people are willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist on the basis that he's secretly fighting a bunch of satan-worshipping baby-eaters, it doesn't matter what electoral system you have, you're fucked.
(Incidentally, reread that last sentence. If you proposed that as a movie plot and you weren't Trey Parker they'd probably send you to a loony bin, but this is our current reality. That's how badly broken things are).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:07AM (1 child)
AC you replied to here.
I understand you pessimism, although I don't accept or agree with it.
As for your statement that "As long as people are willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist on the basis that he's secretly fighting a bunch of satan-worshipping baby-eaters,"
you're referring to a small, but significant, fraction of Trump voters. Many Trump voters just wouldn't vote for a Democrat. Especially with the constant drumbeat of "socialism!" from the far right media conglomerates that control most of the *local* TV and radio stations across the midwest, south and southwest.
That's a big problem too.
But I don't agree that it's impossible to have change. Especially since most of that change has to come from the grassroots. At the local and state levels.
You can throw up your hands and give up, but then you're part of the problem and not the solution, even if you tacitly support cleaning up our political system.
I refuse to do so. Maybe I'll fail, but I'd rather fail while trying to do some good than just sit around and watch. Maybe that's because I *hate* popcorn?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:48PM
“As for your statement that "As long as people are willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist on the basis that he's secretly fighting a bunch of satan-worshipping baby-eaters,"
you're referring to a small, but significant, fraction of Trump voters.”
That they had different reasons for their willingness does not negate their willingness. They still occupy the circle on the Venn Diagram labeled “people willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist” and that circle has 100% reciprocal coverage of “Trump voters.”
They are not just equivalent sets, they are equal sets. So, no, the reference is to every Trump voter with precisely zero exceptions.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:12AM
Separate reply because it's a separate point: Like the subprime mortgage crisis, I can't see this ever happening because everyone all the way up and down the food chain has their head too far in the trough. We (meaning you and I) can see it's broken and want to change it, but most of the people involved in the process don't. There are a few politicians who seem to be genuinely interested in reform, but look at where that got the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she's dismissed as "radical left" by most people for wanting such radical, practically communist things as free healthcare, fair taxation, dealing with poverty, looking after the environment, all the things that are normal in most other functioning democracies but regarded as extremist views in the US.
Thus my comment that it's going to take a reformat and reinstall to fix things. The lightbulb has to want to change.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:04AM (3 children)
Politicians have lots of power but very little pay. Corruption is ensured.
We don't like the politicians, so we think they don't deserve the pay, but that is the wrong attitude. It gives us corruption. If we won't pay anything close to the market rate, we deserve the corruption. Somebody else will be glad to pay our politicians.
Another part of the problem is that the pay seems high to the median American voter. Somebody looks at their own $60,000 and the senator's $195,000 and thinks the senator is well-paid. No dummy, look at CEO pay. Elon Musk gets about $500,000,000 for his pay, without even a fraction of the power and responsibility. Even our president gets only $400,000. That's just FAANG software developer pay. It's less than 0.1% of what Elon Musk makes, yet the president is responsible for so much more: nuclear weapon usage, tariffs, millions of employees, regulations that affect hundreds of millions of people, etc.
Pay some serious clean money, and the dirty money problem goes away.
Right now it is dirt cheap for China to bribe our politicians. That should terrify every American.
On a per-GDP basis, there isn't a single non-trivial nation in the entire world that pays the leader less. (combine the salary of head-of-state with head-of-government for places with separate people, exclude micronations like the Vatican, exclude places that don't report GDP reliably like North Korea, etc.)
On an absolute basis, the USA pays less than Ireland and Iceland. Running those countries literally pays better than running the USA. Reminder: the USA is largest economy in the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:10PM (2 children)
If they REALLY loved America, they'd do it for free.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @02:40AM (1 child)
They should do it for the pay of the average voter. This gives them the incentive to raise the pay and standards of living for the average voter, and not the 0.01%.
A $15 minimum wage would pass really easily under such conditions. There would also be more interest in creating long term jobs and not shit "gigs."
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @07:41AM
Maybe you should have specified "average" more carefully. (arithmetic mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, median, mode...)
In any case, when an election costs a member of congress a few million dollars, what would a low salary even count for? Might as well donate it to charity to look good, then pay for the campaign with bribes!
Even $500/hour is nothing much for a senator. It's unprofitable compared to taking bribes, and very unprofitable compared to being a CEO.
Oh, and on the matter of "creating long term jobs and not shit", you seem to be confused about what congress does. Congress kills the jobs created by industry. Take the health care situation for example. By mandating expensive health care for workers doing 30 hours per week, congress effectively mandated a work week of less than 30 hours for the typical worker. Yeah, less work! Uh, well, two jobs with two commutes, because humans compete and will thus run up the cost of everything if they can. Another great example is environmental regulation, also known as pushing factories out of the country.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Friday January 15 2021, @04:35PM
Removing money from politics means removing the power of politicians to craft legislation and regulations that favor a particular person, business or industry, to discriminate for or against, to give hand-outs. Why do you think so much is spent on elections and lobbying? Whatever rules you make, money will find its way to those who have this power. The only way is to remove power from politicians. If a big business cannot buy a handout or a tax break, money in politics will dry up instantly.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -- P. J. O'Rourke
(Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:27PM (1 child)
And free polonium for all those who run against the incumbent!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:05PM
Free polonium?!? Sign me up! Can I get an extended warranty too?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:51PM
A "pretty reasonable constitution" that it never followed. A "fair voting system" that it never used for anything other than propaganda purposes.
The present day electorate didn't create the first-past-the-post voting system (for a glaring counterexample).
Neither which was due to problems with the electorate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:01AM
The problem with the electorate is due to the Jews. Who owns the monetary system, controls the government, the schools, the media, pop culture, the churches, etc. All due to the Jews.
Germany was on the right track, but the Jew slave states had to murder them for daring to free themselves of the parasitic infection.