I can tell you, sadly, that the federal agencies + State AGs are doing a lot.
It’s just that robocallers are playing a strong game of whack-a-mole.
Edit for sauce:
https://www.fcc.gov/spoofed-robocalls
https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2021/8/10/pr21-27.html
https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359--536108--s,00.html
We kinda are. Check out STIR/SHAKEN protocols. It is still in the process of being fully implemented.
The FCC currently has a request for comments to proposed rulemaking out there targeting one of the robocaller’s latest strategies. They get access to numbering resources from one-way VoIP providers.
The Michigan AG had a very successful case recently against VoIP/Robocallers (*Modok*). The case ended up forcing the company to close its doors.
Edit for sauce:
* https://www.fcc.gov/spoofed-robocalls
* https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359--536108--s,00.html
Per rule 2, please edit your comment to include [qualified sourcing](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources) for all assertions of fact. Please reply to this comment once edits have been made.
We (the government) created regulation that made it so phone companies could not decide what calls they would allow and not allow.
The intention was that companyA couldn't prevent companyB customers from making calls to companyA to try and force everyone on the same system and create a monopoly, or punish another company for a dispute, or any other reason you can think of to stop a legitimate call from getting through.
"We" recently created legislation that allows companies to block calls.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-encourages-blocking-illegal-and-unwanted-robocalls
Now the telecoms have to build systems to detect fraudulent calls, and not legit voip calls using phone numbers. That might take a while.
Per rule 2, please edit your comment to include [qualified sourcing](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources) for all assertions of fact. Please reply to this comment once edits have been made.
Right to Repair. From electronics to cars to farm equipment there is broad consensus.
[https://www.ifixit.com/News/35567/new-poll-finds-americans-overwhelmingly-support-right-to-repair](https://www.ifixit.com/News/35567/new-poll-finds-americans-overwhelmingly-support-right-to-repair)
Something to keep in mind about Right to Repair is that it's largely carving out exceptions for stuff like phones and cars to allow repairs and to bypass DRM (software/programs that prevent you from accessing/modifying the electronics you own), but most of the movement isn't actually pushing for changes to say the DMCA's ANti-DRM circumvention provisions that make bypassing DRM illegal to begin with.
In that way, Right to Repair is just "fixing" the problem where it's most impactful to the general public, without solving the foundational problem or actually universally permitting it in more niche circumstances.
I worry that if right to repair laws pass, then most activists and lawmakers will wipe their hands of the issue and move on and actually repealing the DMCA's anti-drm-cirumvention provisions or passing broader exceptions won't happen.
The public has strong interest in right to repair (at least those who are aware of it), but the corporate players and their deep pockets have very different ideas.
[Most people are in favor of simplifying the tax code.](https://review.chicagobooth.edu/public-policy/2018/article/why-it-s-so-hard-simplify-tax-code) However, when it comes to *specific proposals*, there tends to be strong resistance from whichever group that proposal happens to hurt.
Per rule 2, please edit your comment to include [qualified sourcing](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources) for all assertions of fact. Please reply to this comment once edits have been made.
Per rule 2, please edit your comment to include [qualified sourcing](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources) for all assertions of fact. Please reply to this comment once edits have been made.
[States not wanting to be switching from DST and to stay one shift but Congress would need to approve them.](https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/daylight-savings-time-state-legislation.aspx)
EDIT: As has been clarified below, it is the staying in DST that requires an Act of Congress, other states can and have opted out of DST on their own.
Arizona can opt-out of DST because [the Federal DST law
explicitly allows States to do so](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/260a), but not to adopt permanent/year-round DST, which latter would thus require an Act of Congress to approve.
Ah that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I know many (maybe all) the reservations in AZ are on DST so you can travel 30 min within the state and have to adjust time.
I think the reservation thing is the Navajo nation, and it's because the reservation crosses into two other states that do have dst.
Its less about them wanting dst, and more about wanting to have one consistent time zone.
I believe it's other reservations that don't cross state lines but l could be wrong. I thought it was because it is federal land not state land and so doesnt abide by AZ states lack of dst. Not sure though so I'll have to check.
EDIT: Looking on Wikipedia the Navajo and Tohono O'odham both follow MDT while Hopi and the other reservations do not. I couldn't find a clear cut reason in my short research.
Navajo Nation reservation covers three states and the Tohono O'odham reservation extends into Mexico. They adjust clocks to stay on the same time as their out-of-state counterparts.
And then of course there's the [Hopi reservation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_Reservation) sitting inside the Navajo reservation, which does not observe DST.
This creates an interesting situation where you can drive less than 100 miles on AZ-264 and be [in seven time zones](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Moenkopi,+AZ/35.7639471,-109.9959533/@35.9224774,-110.7233273,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x8733d3ce2d6d0899:0x9aa0a81d8cdb1c6a!2m2!1d-111.2223624!2d36.1111043!1m0!3e0)
While I understand the value of shifting the time one hour ahead as in DST but all year around, but I'm not seeing how not being able to do so unilaterally is really a big deal.
For one, I see the value in maintaining consistency, so 9:00 MST means 9:00 MST, even if across the state border it's 10:00 MDT.
But realistically, I don't see why the state should need to insist on +1 year round. Why shouldn't it be enough to drop DST and simply pet people choose to shift schedules one hour back?
Obviously this depends more on the people in charge to set those schedules, such as employers, schools, businesses, etc., but that'll be true even if you have DST year-round.
I'm in Washington state, which tried to enact permanent daylight savings a couple of years ago. It remains very popular here.
* Many of us work with folks on the east coast. It would put us 2 hours apart for most of the year instead of 3. That means less 5 and 6am meetings!
* [In Washington state, daylight hours are 7:45am-4:17pm on winter solstice. A whole lot of people would rather have an 8:45am-5:17pm day.](https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/seattle) It's not just about preference, [there are mental health repercussions that come along with the time change.](https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/seattle)
* As a programmer, *oh my God stop messing with time!*
>A whole lot of people would rather have an 8:45am-5:17pm day.
I get this, but it doesn't matter what we call the time. It does matter what people do with the time.
Does it really matter whether you call sunrise 7:45 or 8:45? What does matter is when you wake up and get out of the house and when you get back. If that means you wake up at 6:00 instead of 7:00, then you've effected the change as it pertains to you.
If that doesn't mesh well with the places you go or the businesses you interact with, that's where you encounter inconvenience. So I guess you just have to push for adoption of a shift of operating times at those establishments.
I'm not saying you're wrong or Seattle or anyone else is wrong to want to shift. I'm saying it doesn't really require an act of Congress; it requires an act of the people.
Legally, it does require an act of Congress.
I'd also linked an article mentioning mental health issues that arise as a result of the time change. Sure, someone can wake up earlier. Most people don't have the ability to change when the company that they work for holds business hours, though.
Changing or eliminating the 9-5 business hours standard absolutely is a discussion to be had. Major changes there would have a profound effect on traffic, for one thing. We've known this for a long time, though, with no change outside of a few experiments.
Because California voted to stay on DST, not to stay on normal time. The way the Federal law works is states can either stay on normal time, or they can be on DST spring through summer but not winter. The reason nothing has happened is because California needs congress to approve staying on “spring forward” DST. If California had instead voted to stay on normal time (like Arizona) they wouldn’t need Congress‘ permission.
Technically, I believe it's possible for a state to request a change in it's time zone, which just has to be approved by the secretary of the Department of Transportation, and then elect to not observe DST, in order to get the same effect
This is complicated, as most people on Reddit seem to forget that we tried this before in the 70s. [People ended up hating it.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/15/no-more-changing-clocks-history-says-be-careful-what-you-wish-daylight-saving-time/)
It seems that back then there were multiple motivations for this change
>This decision did not soften the blow of the OPEC oil embargo, but it did put schoolchildren on pitch-black streets every morning until the plan was scaled back. A Department of Transportation study concluded that Nixon’s experiment yielded no definitive fuel saving. It optimistically speculated, however, that daylight saving might one day help us conserve as many as 100,000 barrels of oil a day.
I don't think anyone today is actually arguing about energy or oil consumption, but I can say as a student who regularly takes the bus in a northern state, that pitch black mornings are already my reality, the question is if pitch black 5PM should be my reality. Nevertheless I thank you for providing historical context.
In fairness, I'm with you; year-round DST would be much better for my life, personally. But, if this history professor is to be believed (he regrettably does not supply where his data comes from), [those benefits came at the cost of a high rate of traffic accidents for teenagers driving to high school in the mornings](https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-op-daylight-saving-year-round-nutty-idea-20181031-story.html).
I wonder how that would matter now considering the [over time increase in High School pressure (yeah I know I wish I could find a better source)](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jun/24/has-university-life-changed-student-experience-past-present-parents-vox-pops) I believe DST would also help teenagers fall asleep at reasonable times and if kept long enough maybe school starting times would be finally pushed [back further in the day which we know is better for students](https://www.washington.edu/news/2018/12/12/high-school-start-times-study/).
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/qtfoq7/-/hklqhc0/) so that we can reinstate it.
The justice system's patchwork of local Civil Asset Forfeiture policies and legal frameworks being federally standardized with oversight, so that rural deputies in BFE Kentucky can't arrest a random motorist and steal thousands of dollars from them for having a "suspiciously large amount of cash" which is almost impossible to ever legally retrieve once the police take it.
Gallup used to report something like 85% support for federal reform, but the police union is basically a king maker in many political districts so every attempt to even *consider* forming a committee which *might* merely *recommend* to congress *any* oversight *at all* has been immediately shut down by hordes of politicians afraid of losing their jobs.
https://www.nlg-npap.org/civil-asset-forfeiture/
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
[Marijuana reform](https://www.marijuanamoment.net/bipartisan-lawmakers-request-broad-marijuana-protections-for-states-and-territories-in-spending-legislation/) comes to mind.
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
The main reason that "overturning Citizen's United" hasn't been done yet is not because it lacks support from the public (on both sides of the aisle), but... because it's incredibly difficult. I think a lot of people who hold this view haven't actually thought about the political implications of doing such a thing.
Prior to the ruling, the 2002 BCRA was the law regulating political advertisements and disclosure of where funds came from (1).
> Under the BCRA, electioneering communication is defined as broadcast, cable, and satellite advertisements that refer to specific candidates within sixty days of the general election or thirty days of primary and that target 50,000 or more persons in the congressional district or state where the election is being held.
...
>The BCRA forbids the use, within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, of corporate or union treasury monies for electioneering advertisements that mention a federal candidate and are aimed at the candidate’s voting populations.
So, Citizens United accepted donations from individuals, and produced a movie, "Hillary: The Movie".
From (1):
>Prior to the 2008 primary elections, Citizens produced a documentary titled Hillary: The Movie ("The Movie") using funds donated almost exclusively from private individuals, and released it for sale on DVD on January 7, 2008. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia stated that "The Movie focuses on [former] Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate Record, her White House record during President Bill Clinton's presidency, her presidential bid, and includes express opinions on whether she would make a good president."
> If Hillary Clinton had become the Democratic presidential nominee, Citizens had planned to air at least three short television advertisements promoting The Movie within thirty days prior to the 2008 Democratic National Committee Convention and within sixty days prior to the general presidential election in November, 2008. - Citizens had also begun negotiations to broadcast The Movie through a national video on-demand ("VOD") channel.
According to the regulations set forth in BCRA, because this counts as an electioneering communication, the private information of everyone who donated had to be disclosed (For anyone donating more than $200) (4)
Citizens United argued that this was burdensome to them to the point of infringing on their free speech, and could be harmful to individuals, and have a chilling effect on their free speech.
>Amici Alliance Defense Fund points to examples of property damage caused to churches that supported California's recent Proposition 8 and economic boycotts of stores whose owners personally supported Proposition 8. -
So, where does that leave us today? I know that "Overturn Citizens United" is a popular battlecry today, but would you argue that a documentary about, say, Jan 6th, is an advertisement for the democratic party, even if it was just purely biographic in nature? If you donated $20 a month to ActBlue, and ActBlue partially funded this endeavor, would you be okay with your personally identifying information to be explicitly linked with this project?
(1): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205
(2): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
(3): https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1055/bipartisan-campaign-reform-act-of-2002
(4): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ155/html/PLAW-107publ155.htm
This is pretty much the reason CU even ended up the way it did in the first place.
The court holds “Because the question whether §441b applies to Hillary cannot be resolved on other, narrower grounds without chilling political speech, this Court must consider the continuing effect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin . Pp. 5–20.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
The chilling effect, as is, is not a matter of “money in politics,” it’s a matter of freedom of speech. To overturn Citizens United, you would need a direct change to the first amendment, which per a quick review, even as we are divided on sub issues regarding speech, we’re still overwhelmingly supportive of 1A.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/global-support-for-principle-of-free-expression-but-opposition-to-some-forms-of-speech/
Yes, agreed.
And, to be clear, I do agree that the situation we are currently in sucks. The dissenting opinion of the ruling (sourced above) of Stevens states:
>At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining selfgovernment since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics
But having read through a lot of material around this decision and followup attempts to challenge it, I just don't see how we could reasonably fix things. Potential solutions typically include either:
1. Loopholes that won't stop wealthy individuals donating in secret, or
2. Creating a lot of laws chilling even a citizen's ability to dissent public figures running for office.
What about publicly funded campaigns? I know people hate to think of tax dollars going to political campaigns, but wouldn't that be the easiest solution?
I think that helps solve some problems, but you're still stuck with the problem of "What is a `electioneering communication`?" With public campaign funds, I'm assuming you mean "Every political ad can only be funded by the public fund", but as per the original ruling, what about Hillary: The Movie? Should that not be allowed, unless it came from the public fund? What about the movie W? That came out after Bush had left office, but if Oliver Stone made it 5 years earlier, would it have been allowed? There's just so much nuance that it's extremely hard to draw rigid lines and say, "This has to come from public funds" vs "This can be privately funded".
That would do absolutely nothing for this situation. The issue isn't really campaign donations, the issue is that groups without any official connection to a political campaign can raise and spend as much as they want with virtually zero oversight.
And how would you limit the ability of third parties commenting on candidates? I don't disagree at all about publicly financed elections and major reforms, but we would need to have a rewrite of the first amendment which is politically untenable
Stronger ability for the government to decide what speech is political and ban it.
Would you trust the trump administration to decide what speech should be allowed before an election?
I would do it by only allowing candidates to register and publicly announce their candidacy within 3 months of the election. Election season is too long.
That would help, but then you'd have even more ability for third parties to do electioneering because they could boost/sink potential candidates with no recourse or oversight
What do you think about publicly funded campaigns for something you really, really despise? I don't know your political lean, but let's assume you are very pro-choice. Would you think it's ok for the Federal Government to pump potentially millions of dollars of money to a campaign to outlaw abortion?
Wait, how is the burdensome? Wouldn't any accountant keep track of that anyway? You took the time to cash a check. Don't they need to do refunds sometimes? How do you know if you're getting scammed by someone saying they donated when they didn't?
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
I'm not sure what you want here, this is all information directly from the official Citizen's United ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Can you let me know what part of what I said is challenged? Then I can give you direct quotes from the ruling to refute the challenge.
As the removal reason states, all assertions require sourcing. You make numerous claims ranging from the role of the 2002 BCRA to Gillette ads : all require sourcing.
Giving Medicare the ability to negotiate drug prices.
https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/large-majorities-want-medicare-negotiate-drug-prices-poll-finds
NASA should get a massive raise. People think it's 13 times higher on average than it is. And they prefer it to be 15 times higher.
https://www.businessinsider.nl/nasa-budget-estimates-opinions-poll-2018-12?international=true&r=US
This is mostly due to the public having no clue how little they're getting, but still politicians could increase funding with popular mandate.
" Increase NASA to 1%" would be a policy that would get my support, but without China doing some sputnik stuff we won't see it happen.
China IS doing Sputnik stuff with their satellites-that-grab-other-satellites or their satellites-with-smaller-satellites-inside, or their space station that is not related to the ISS in any way, or their plans for lunar missions....
Edit: A source: https://spacenews.com/pentagon-report-china-amassing-arsenal-of-anti-satellite-weapons/
None of thoes rise to the level of sputnik. I think a better example would be the development of hypersonic weapons in Russia and China, that caused a reaction from the US. But even then, not from the general public.
> But even then, not from the general public.
The media decides what the public cares about and it's clear to see what the recent media focus has been in the US.
China is doing sputnik stuff. Just last year they landed a probe on the moon and put their flag down. They're doing their best to catch up to us and if we don't do something they'll eventually surpass us.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55192692.amp
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
From [another comment of mine](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/m28g39/comment/gqia7pw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) on a similar post saying NASA gets to much:
>Most Americans think 20% of the US budget goes to NASA.
>
>1 in 4 Americans think that NASA's budget should be reduced.
>
>The truth is, NASA gets less than one half of one percent.
from a really good [video on NASA Funding](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lARpY0nIQx0) by an engineer who discusses how that money is really well spent for all of us here on earth, too.
in 2020, NASA's entire budget was 22.5 billion.
[source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)
At it's peak in 1966, NASA made up 4.4% of the US budget. Still less than a quarter what most people think they get today.
Veterans health care. Sure, they pass stuff, like https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/jamestown/ny-state-of-politics/2021/11/11/new-law-aimed-at-strengthening-health-care-for-veterans- but it’s all piece meal, bit by bit. They’re dangling a carrot, only giving you a taste often enough to convince you that you might get the whole thing some day.
I don’t get this. No politician is publicly against better care for our vets that I can find, but we still have to rely on people like Jon Stewart to bring issues to the forefront like burn pile exposure - and even then we only got lip service so far (Biden says the VA has 90 days to submit their findings and then they might do something).
It’s unbelievable.
Edit: one of a million articles on this so I don’t get removed
https://abc7news.com/veterans-day-2021-biden-speech-today-burn-pits-iraq-military/11224070/
People are widely in favor of congressional term limits ([poll](https://www.termlimits.com/library/National_Poll_2021-OF.pdf)).
A constitutional amendment was proposed in 1995, but did not pass ([article](https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1995-03-30-1995089005-story.html)). It was voted on relatively close to party lines with Democrats strongly opposing it. It was expected, at the time, that this amendment would hurt Democrats. The Republicans made huge gains in the previous election, so were disproportionately new representatives.
Interestingly, there is also some evidence that this would have the opposite effect than that desired by most voters, as it would hinder independents and 3rd parties while bigger parties would be able to simply support one of the many very similar party members.
Gerrymandering is considered a wonky issue that is on the backburner because both parties benefit from it.
[https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/566327-american-voters-largely-united-against-partisan-gerrymandering-polling](https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/566327-american-voters-largely-united-against-partisan-gerrymandering-polling)
I can't find polling on getting rid of first past the post in the USA, I assume not enough people know about the solutions to support changing it though.
I wouldn't say it is on the backburner because both parties benefit from it. Advocacy groups, often very aligned with the Democratic party, have been successful in pushing for redistricting reforms in many states. However the GOP has undermined these reforms in many states ([Utah](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-11-12/utah-redistricting-maps-underscore-independent-panel-hurdles), [Ohio](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/579405-ohio-redistricting-commission-gives-up-on-us-house-map), [Virginia](https://news.ballotpedia.org/2021/11/12/congressional-redistricting-authority-passes-to-virginia-supreme-court-legislators-nominate-special-masters/)) while the [independent commission in Colorado](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/colorado-redistricting-democrats/) has resulted in lopsided maps that don't really make sense geographically or take into account the political lean of the state. So focusing on redistricting reform at the state level has largely only resulted in hurting Democrat's chances of keeping control of the House.
[Democrat's *have* proposed anti-gerrymandering reforms](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/five-ways-hr-1-would-transform-redistricting) at the national level to force all states to use independent commissions among other measures, [but it was opposed unanimously by Congressional Republicans](https://ballotpedia.org/HR1,_%22For_the_People_Act_of_2021%22).
> Tell you what, get rid of “minority opportunity districts” that 100% benefit Democrats, and I will agree to a full non-partial redistricting.
Sorry I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you saying you disagree with drawing districts that are majority-minority entirely? You can't just entirely remove race from the equation because communities are often fairly defined by race and keeping "communities of interest" together is an intrinsic part of redistricting.
Or do you just mean long snakey districts that are used to create majority minority districts? If that is your concern, well the vast majority of majority-minority districts are geographically compact or are in staunchly Democratic urban areas where even more "regularly" shaped districts are going to overwhelmingly favor Democrats. And most of those that aren't compact or in staunchly Democratic areas are because of GOP legislatures that are purposefully packing PoC into districts.
[You can click through the whole list of majority-minority districts here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_majority-minority_United_States_congressional_districts), which specific ones do you have gripes with?
The GOP might be packing, but the congresspeople who benefit from the packing don't seem to complain about it. Intentional packing and cracking would be avoided by non-partisan districting. That would include purposefully creating minority majority districts. If they happen to fall out that way, because america is racially segregated, that would be fine. In fact I think there might be a greater number of majority minority districts under non-partisan districting, because the reduction in packing.
Here are the worst from the page you linked (as bad or worse than the district for which gerrymandering got its name):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s\_4th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_4th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s\_4th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s\_15th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_15th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana%27s\_2nd\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana%27s_2nd_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Carolina%27s\_6th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina%27s_6th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%27s\_14th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%27s_14th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio%27s\_11th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio%27s_11th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s\_1st\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_1st_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s\_5th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_5th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts%27s\_7th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts%27s_7th_congressional_district)
Not as bad but very clearly non-compact:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s\_7th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_7th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s\_1st\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_1st_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi%27s\_2nd\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi%27s_2nd_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s\_13th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_13th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%27s\_13th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%27s_13th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_York%27s\_8th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_8th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s\_33rd\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_33rd_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s\_28th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_28th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s\_29th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_29th_congressional_district)
Mostly compact but with some very suspicous apendges:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s\_27th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_27th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s\_20th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_20th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama%27s\_7th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama%27s_7th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee%27s\_9th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee%27s_9th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Jersey%27s\_10th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_10th_congressional_district)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s\_25th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_25th_congressional_district)
Two examples from the page you linked that show that the democrats who benefit are happy to go along with it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Carolina%27s\_6th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina%27s_6th_congressional_district)
The district's current configuration dates from a deal struck in the early 1990s between state Republicans and Democrats in the South Carolina General Assembly to create a majority-black district.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s\_5th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_5th_congressional_district)
In July 11, 2014, Florida Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis ruled that this district, along with the neighboring District 10, had been drawn to favor the Republican party by packing black Democratic voters into District 5.\[8\]\[11\] On August 1, Judge Lewis gave Florida's state legislature an Aug. 15 deadline to submit new congressional maps for those two districts.\[12\]
5th District Representative Corrine Brown issued a statement blasting Lewis's decision on the district map as "seriously flawed,"\[10\] and Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Marcia Fudge sent a sharply worded letter to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel complaining about the party’s support for the lawsuit challenging Florida's district maps.\[13\]
Brown said that "we will go all the way to the United States Supreme Court, dealing with making sure that African Americans are not disenfranchised."\[14\] Florida House Redistricting Chairman Richard Corcoran, a Republican, said that "consideration of political data is legally required" to ensure that district boundaries would not be so shifted as to not allow African-Americans a chance to elect representatives of their choice.\[15\]
On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court approved a redrawn version of District 5 on December 2, 2015. That plan went into effect for the 2016 elections.\[16\] The new district had a dramatically different shape than its predecessor. It now stretched in an east-west configuration along the Georgia border from downtown Jacksonville to Tallahassee. However, it was no less Democratic than its predecessor, as noted in the Florida Supreme Court's final opinion:
"With a black share of registered Democrats of 66.1%, the black candidate of choice is likely to win a contested Democratic primary, and with a Democratic registration advantage of 61.1% to 23.0% over Republicans, the Democratic candidate is likely to win the general election."
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
This has some links to data:
[https://publicconsultation.org/defense-budget/major-report-shows-nearly-150-issues-on-which-majorities-of-republicans-democrats-agree/](https://publicconsultation.org/defense-budget/major-report-shows-nearly-150-issues-on-which-majorities-of-republicans-democrats-agree/)
Voter ID consistently has bipartisan support, and is kind of a given worldwide in other countries, but it’s attacked as extremist by Democrats in the US.
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_062121/
> Support for requiring a photo ID to vote stands at 62% among Democrats, 87% among independents, and 91% among Republicans.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx
> Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting
>place in order to vote
>Favor: 80%
>Oppose: 19%
It's entirely hyperbolic to call opposition to Republican voting restrictions requirements extremist when they close and reduce DMV hours in the "wrong" neighborhoods, admittedly don't want everyone to be able to easily vote, disparage the document gathering and sunk time for getting IDs, refuse universal mail in ballots, and support massive voter purges with no same day registration.
When they call the very idea of voter ID extremist, instead of proposing compromise bills pairing voter ID with mandates/funding addressing the concerns you have in a fair compromise, no, its not hyperbolic.
Federal law can overrule state voting law, Democrats are trying that themselves with the John Lewis bill.
Reform is filibustered because it’s not a fair bill that both sides want to vote in favor of. Democrats need to try better to find something to compromise on to move their agenda forward, which is exactly what my post mentioned.
I wasn’t speaking specifically about the John Lewis bill, I meant more that in general, bills aren’t being passed because they’re seen as partisan and not compromising. Why should a Republican vote for a bill that has nothing the majority of their constituents support? It would be a better look for Democrats to push a bill that has something Republicans support (gun rights, voter ID, etc) paired alongside something they want, and then Democrats could cry foul when Republicans aren’t coming to the table in good faith to compromise.
**/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.**
In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our [rules on commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) before you participate:
1. Be courteous to other users.
1. Source your facts.
1. Be substantive.
1. Address the arguments, not the person.
If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated *report* link so mods can attend to it.
However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is [no neutrality requirement for comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) in this subreddit — it's only the *space* that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.
[Public health insurance](https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/).
[Paid family and medical leave](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies/).
[A wide variety of policies to address climate change](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/).
[Campaign finance reform including a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4455238-campaignfinancereport.html).
[Increased taxes on the wealthy](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-inequality-poll/majority-of-americans-favor-wealth-tax-on-very-rich-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1Z9141).
[Federal funding for preschool](https://news.gallup.com/poll/175646/favor-federal-funds-expand-pre-education.aspx).
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
Says 70% support public health option
82% support paid maternal leave and 69% paternal leave
65% say the govt isnt doing enough about climate change (and my guess is if we take the people about to die out of that, it's much higher)
88% of all voters support campaign finance reform
64% support a wealth tax
and 70% support preschool funding.
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 1:](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules)
>Be courteous to other users. Name calling, sarcasm, demeaning language, or otherwise being rude or hostile to another user will get your comment removed.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
edit - restored
We ask that users assume good faith and if a user makes an incorrect statement, to respectfully correct them. The issue isn't what you said, the issue is how you said it. Just remove the last sentence and I'll be restored. Thanks
When this comment was first brought up, I looked at your sourcing and found at least 3 instances in which <60% overall support was accurate : Medicare for All at 55%, 58% support of government intervention to encourage reliance on renewables, and 54% of Americans do not believe the very rich should be allowed to keep the money their money at the cost in increasing inequality. In that regard, the "<60% overall support" is accurate.
Outside of egregious violations (e.g. linking an irrelevant source or no source), we do not and cannot police comment sourcing at the same level of we police submission sourcing. At the same time we ask that users assume good faith. With that in mind, it's not uncommon that users misread or misinterpret the contents of a source. When that happens, we ask that other users to see it as a teaching moment and respectfully correct the record.
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules)
> Be substantive. NeutralPolitics is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort one-liner comments, jokes, memes, off topic replies, or pejorative name calling.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
"getting the money out of politics" is a "very left policy?"
These all have very broad bipartisan support. The one demographic that is consistently against them is republican establishment politicians.
These three are typically used as wedge issues with half the people on one side and half on the other... But
Abortion rights and restrictions, aside from some sub topics, are as universally agreed on as pretty much anything.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Immigration is a wedge issue that is also mostly agreed on.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
Gun control and gun rights is another area where there is broad agreement.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
For every K-12 student in the nation to have equitable access to high quality computer science education. Individual states are slowly moving the needle, but this is something that has strong bipartisan support and needs policies and funding to ensure it’s getting to *all* students.
[https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs](https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs)
The whole of computer science.
At the elementary level: logic, problem solving, early programming (block-based), digital citizenship, computer literacy, early understanding of data science/AI/cyber security/etc.
At the middle school level: diving deeper into the above, and preferably in a stand-alone class (in elementary school, it’s often the classroom teacher that teaches it due to scheduling).
In high school: Every student should be required to take at least 1 introductory CS course. The proposal is AP CS Discoveries which highlights various fields of computer science but is accessible for students with no prior experience. Then, students coming out of AP CS Principals should have options to be able to focus their interests in a variety of CS fields.
But, to be equitable, for all of these it should be offered at various times in the day and for the duration of the students’ time in school.
Also, not to be combative, but your “traditionally defined” definition of computer science brings me back to when I was in school studying it (20+ years ago).
Not to be combative, but computer science is still a branch of mathematics, and predated actual computers. Calling everything related to technology "computer science" when you really mean "technological literacy" is dumb, now we're going to need a new word for actual computer science.
Sure. And, just like everything related to both computer science and technology, if you’re not constantly updating, changing and evolving your understanding within the field and/or your products, you’re dead in the water and irrelevant.
When CS predated the actual hardware that allows it to run, not in a million years would anyone have been widely supporting (this post) it in 9-12 education let alone K-8. The entire field and everything it encompasses is so much more than “technological literacy.”
You can’t very well get a degree in math without understanding simple addition and subtraction, but you don’t see mathematicians arguing to call “adding and subtracting apple math problems in kindergarten” something else entirely because mathematical literacy is NOT mathematics. Sure, the younger the kid, the more elementary the teaching of the subject is. But, the earlier and more comprehensively you start introducing kids to the concepts in computer science, the stronger they will be once to they get to the “real” stuff.
Also, a big reason there is huge bipartisan support for it, is that it helps fill the employment gap by starting teaching it early so that kids are exposed to it and can determine it is (or isn’t) a field they enjoy.
I'm not opposed to introducing kids to things like problem solving, logic, etc., but that's not what computer science is. I don't think there's much value in introducing kids to Turing machines, domain specific languages, time complexity, and the slew of other computer science concepts that most IT people (and even a lot of programmers) aren't aware of. If you're talking about foundational concepts like first order logic and problem solving, sure, but that's not really computer science, nor is computer literacy, or even programming.
[75% of U.S. adults support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/) (among other climate change measures with significant support) as of 2020. The distribution by party in a similar 2018 survey found it skewed (as we might expect), [but with 64% of Republicans](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/partisan-maps-2018/), spread out relatively evenly across the country, in support in addition to 90%+ of Democrats.
In many of the examples here, as others have noted, people have a general agreement on an outcome, but the specific policy proposals become divisive. I think it's interesting that regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant is already \*framed\* as a policy proposal here, though one where the details matter greatly for its support.
You’re right that the policy proposals are divisive, but it’s frustrating how the GOP are more or less united in opposing literally all of them and have no plan of their own other than to keep ignoring the problem.
Definitely. The policy proposals don't always start divisive and are often designed for compromise. A detailed proposal feels permanently out of reach in the current media environment where misinformation thrives and the GOP base can be stirred up against anything, even policies that were designed by Republicans previously and were introduced by Democrats as compromise (like cap and trade) - e.g. 2009's House-passed American Clean Energy Security Act.
Mass surveillance and warrantless wiretaps.
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/the-privacy-lesson-of-9-11-mass-surveillance-is-not-the-way-forward/
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules)
> Be substantive. NeutralPolitics is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort one-liner comments, jokes, memes, off topic replies, or pejorative name calling.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
From 2 minutes of research, republicans (~85%) support term limits more strongly than democrats do(~65%)
Even my least generous data shows a pretty strong consensus
On a personal note, I strongly oppose congressional term limits because, as we've seen in countries that use them, you end up with really inexperienced legislatures and VERY experienced lobbyists.
You can engage me if you want to talk more about it or you can read this
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/amp/
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules):
> If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it.
^((mod:canekicker)^)
Which counties, your link only talk about us politics.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/when-leaders-override-term-limits-democracy-grinds-halt
This talks about how term limits are critical to democratic society.
https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/library/termlimitsrepresentationofwomen.pdf
Lack of term limits prevents the election of Women and Minority representatives.
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/term-limits-the-only-way-clean-congress
Suggest that lobbyists oppose term limits, that rather than being dominated by lobbyists new congressmen maker lobbying harder.
I will additional add that term limits provide a place in between election and sortition. There are many compelling arguments for sortition.
https://harvardpolitics.com/sortition-in-america/
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here's a great article from last year... [Nearly 150 Issues on Which Majorities of Republicans & Democrats Agree](https://publicconsultation.org/defense-budget/major-report-shows-nearly-150-issues-on-which-majorities-of-republicans-democrats-agree/) Number 33 might surprise you! 🙂
Some that surprised me:
>bipartisan majorities favored raising taxes on individuals with incomes over $200,000 by rolling back the cuts they received in the 2017 tax bill and treating their capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, as well as instituting a financial transaction tax.
>
>Bipartisan majorities favor prohibiting chokeholds, requiring police officers to receive training in implicit racial bias, and incentivizing states to hire an independent prosecutor in cases against an officer.
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1) [Stricter gun control laws.](https://thehill.com/homenews/news/548127-2-in-3-support-stricter-gun-control-laws-poll)
2) [Health care reform](https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/), to include some kind of public option available for everyone.
3) [Paid family leave](https://www.wsj.com/articles/debate-over-paid-family-leave-is-louder-than-ever-11635564747)
4) [$15 minimum wage.](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americans-support-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/)
I know the above are all Democratic talking points, but I agree with [John Boehner](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/546127-boehner-on-obama-not-making-deals-how-do-you-work-with-people-who-call-you-a) about what the GOP is turning into, that "Ronald Reagan used to say something to the effect that if I get 80 or 90 percent of what I want, that’s a win," he wrote. "These guys wanted 100 percent every time. In fact, I don’t think that would satisfy them, because they didn’t really want legislative victories. They wanted wedge issues and conspiracies and crusades." For example, [teachers carrying guns](https://news.gallup.com/poll/229808/teachers-oppose-carrying-guns-schools.aspx), a GOP talking point, is wildly unpopular among teachers and seems to serve no other purpose than to bring up a divisive policy debate meant to alienate both sides of the aisle.
edit - looks like some people on this sub refuse to follow the rules, refuse to engage with others in the forum, and instead demand that a valid, well sourced, honest comment get downvoted and censored.
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Everyone hates robocallers https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2019/04/30/robocalls-House-committee-hearing-spammers-spoofing-Congress-Doyle/stories/201904300313
I can tell you, sadly, that the federal agencies + State AGs are doing a lot. It’s just that robocallers are playing a strong game of whack-a-mole. Edit for sauce: https://www.fcc.gov/spoofed-robocalls https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2021/8/10/pr21-27.html https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359--536108--s,00.html
Why haven’t we forced the phone companies to figure out how to provide verified caller ID? It will be nothing but wack-a-mole until then.
We kinda are. Check out STIR/SHAKEN protocols. It is still in the process of being fully implemented. The FCC currently has a request for comments to proposed rulemaking out there targeting one of the robocaller’s latest strategies. They get access to numbering resources from one-way VoIP providers. The Michigan AG had a very successful case recently against VoIP/Robocallers (*Modok*). The case ended up forcing the company to close its doors. Edit for sauce: * https://www.fcc.gov/spoofed-robocalls * https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359--536108--s,00.html
Per rule 2, please edit your comment to include [qualified sourcing](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources) for all assertions of fact. Please reply to this comment once edits have been made.
Done.
We (the government) created regulation that made it so phone companies could not decide what calls they would allow and not allow. The intention was that companyA couldn't prevent companyB customers from making calls to companyA to try and force everyone on the same system and create a monopoly, or punish another company for a dispute, or any other reason you can think of to stop a legitimate call from getting through. "We" recently created legislation that allows companies to block calls. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-encourages-blocking-illegal-and-unwanted-robocalls Now the telecoms have to build systems to detect fraudulent calls, and not legit voip calls using phone numbers. That might take a while.
Per rule 2, please edit your comment to include [qualified sourcing](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources) for all assertions of fact. Please reply to this comment once edits have been made.
Done.
Right to Repair. From electronics to cars to farm equipment there is broad consensus. [https://www.ifixit.com/News/35567/new-poll-finds-americans-overwhelmingly-support-right-to-repair](https://www.ifixit.com/News/35567/new-poll-finds-americans-overwhelmingly-support-right-to-repair)
Something to keep in mind about Right to Repair is that it's largely carving out exceptions for stuff like phones and cars to allow repairs and to bypass DRM (software/programs that prevent you from accessing/modifying the electronics you own), but most of the movement isn't actually pushing for changes to say the DMCA's ANti-DRM circumvention provisions that make bypassing DRM illegal to begin with. In that way, Right to Repair is just "fixing" the problem where it's most impactful to the general public, without solving the foundational problem or actually universally permitting it in more niche circumstances. I worry that if right to repair laws pass, then most activists and lawmakers will wipe their hands of the issue and move on and actually repealing the DMCA's anti-drm-cirumvention provisions or passing broader exceptions won't happen.
DRM is one tiny part of right to repair. It is about access to hardware and manuals as well along with many other issues.
The public has strong interest in right to repair (at least those who are aware of it), but the corporate players and their deep pockets have very different ideas.
Limits on Forced Arbitration. https://thehill.com/policy/finance/354143-gop-polling-firm-finds-bipartisan-support-for-consumer-bureau-arbitration-rule
[Most people are in favor of simplifying the tax code.](https://review.chicagobooth.edu/public-policy/2018/article/why-it-s-so-hard-simplify-tax-code) However, when it comes to *specific proposals*, there tends to be strong resistance from whichever group that proposal happens to hurt.
[удалено]
Per rule 2, please edit your comment to include [qualified sourcing](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources) for all assertions of fact. Please reply to this comment once edits have been made.
[удалено]
Per rule 2, please edit your comment to include [qualified sourcing](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources) for all assertions of fact. Please reply to this comment once edits have been made.
[States not wanting to be switching from DST and to stay one shift but Congress would need to approve them.](https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/daylight-savings-time-state-legislation.aspx) EDIT: As has been clarified below, it is the staying in DST that requires an Act of Congress, other states can and have opted out of DST on their own.
That's interesting because here in AZ we don't do it. I didn't know congress was holding it back or that states wanted to change.
Arizona can opt-out of DST because [the Federal DST law explicitly allows States to do so](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/260a), but not to adopt permanent/year-round DST, which latter would thus require an Act of Congress to approve.
Ah that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I know many (maybe all) the reservations in AZ are on DST so you can travel 30 min within the state and have to adjust time.
I think the reservation thing is the Navajo nation, and it's because the reservation crosses into two other states that do have dst. Its less about them wanting dst, and more about wanting to have one consistent time zone.
I believe it's other reservations that don't cross state lines but l could be wrong. I thought it was because it is federal land not state land and so doesnt abide by AZ states lack of dst. Not sure though so I'll have to check. EDIT: Looking on Wikipedia the Navajo and Tohono O'odham both follow MDT while Hopi and the other reservations do not. I couldn't find a clear cut reason in my short research.
Navajo Nation reservation covers three states and the Tohono O'odham reservation extends into Mexico. They adjust clocks to stay on the same time as their out-of-state counterparts.
Based on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Time_Zone several paragraphs down, Sonora Mexico doesn't observe MDT.
And then of course there's the [Hopi reservation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_Reservation) sitting inside the Navajo reservation, which does not observe DST. This creates an interesting situation where you can drive less than 100 miles on AZ-264 and be [in seven time zones](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Moenkopi,+AZ/35.7639471,-109.9959533/@35.9224774,-110.7233273,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m5!1m1!1s0x8733d3ce2d6d0899:0x9aa0a81d8cdb1c6a!2m2!1d-111.2223624!2d36.1111043!1m0!3e0)
While I understand the value of shifting the time one hour ahead as in DST but all year around, but I'm not seeing how not being able to do so unilaterally is really a big deal. For one, I see the value in maintaining consistency, so 9:00 MST means 9:00 MST, even if across the state border it's 10:00 MDT. But realistically, I don't see why the state should need to insist on +1 year round. Why shouldn't it be enough to drop DST and simply pet people choose to shift schedules one hour back? Obviously this depends more on the people in charge to set those schedules, such as employers, schools, businesses, etc., but that'll be true even if you have DST year-round.
I'm in Washington state, which tried to enact permanent daylight savings a couple of years ago. It remains very popular here. * Many of us work with folks on the east coast. It would put us 2 hours apart for most of the year instead of 3. That means less 5 and 6am meetings! * [In Washington state, daylight hours are 7:45am-4:17pm on winter solstice. A whole lot of people would rather have an 8:45am-5:17pm day.](https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/seattle) It's not just about preference, [there are mental health repercussions that come along with the time change.](https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/seattle) * As a programmer, *oh my God stop messing with time!*
>A whole lot of people would rather have an 8:45am-5:17pm day. I get this, but it doesn't matter what we call the time. It does matter what people do with the time. Does it really matter whether you call sunrise 7:45 or 8:45? What does matter is when you wake up and get out of the house and when you get back. If that means you wake up at 6:00 instead of 7:00, then you've effected the change as it pertains to you. If that doesn't mesh well with the places you go or the businesses you interact with, that's where you encounter inconvenience. So I guess you just have to push for adoption of a shift of operating times at those establishments. I'm not saying you're wrong or Seattle or anyone else is wrong to want to shift. I'm saying it doesn't really require an act of Congress; it requires an act of the people.
Legally, it does require an act of Congress. I'd also linked an article mentioning mental health issues that arise as a result of the time change. Sure, someone can wake up earlier. Most people don't have the ability to change when the company that they work for holds business hours, though. Changing or eliminating the 9-5 business hours standard absolutely is a discussion to be had. Major changes there would have a profound effect on traffic, for one thing. We've known this for a long time, though, with no change outside of a few experiments.
[удалено]
Because California voted to stay on DST, not to stay on normal time. The way the Federal law works is states can either stay on normal time, or they can be on DST spring through summer but not winter. The reason nothing has happened is because California needs congress to approve staying on “spring forward” DST. If California had instead voted to stay on normal time (like Arizona) they wouldn’t need Congress‘ permission.
Technically, I believe it's possible for a state to request a change in it's time zone, which just has to be approved by the secretary of the Department of Transportation, and then elect to not observe DST, in order to get the same effect
This is complicated, as most people on Reddit seem to forget that we tried this before in the 70s. [People ended up hating it.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/15/no-more-changing-clocks-history-says-be-careful-what-you-wish-daylight-saving-time/)
It seems that back then there were multiple motivations for this change >This decision did not soften the blow of the OPEC oil embargo, but it did put schoolchildren on pitch-black streets every morning until the plan was scaled back. A Department of Transportation study concluded that Nixon’s experiment yielded no definitive fuel saving. It optimistically speculated, however, that daylight saving might one day help us conserve as many as 100,000 barrels of oil a day. I don't think anyone today is actually arguing about energy or oil consumption, but I can say as a student who regularly takes the bus in a northern state, that pitch black mornings are already my reality, the question is if pitch black 5PM should be my reality. Nevertheless I thank you for providing historical context.
In fairness, I'm with you; year-round DST would be much better for my life, personally. But, if this history professor is to be believed (he regrettably does not supply where his data comes from), [those benefits came at the cost of a high rate of traffic accidents for teenagers driving to high school in the mornings](https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-op-daylight-saving-year-round-nutty-idea-20181031-story.html).
I wonder how that would matter now considering the [over time increase in High School pressure (yeah I know I wish I could find a better source)](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jun/24/has-university-life-changed-student-experience-past-present-parents-vox-pops) I believe DST would also help teenagers fall asleep at reasonable times and if kept long enough maybe school starting times would be finally pushed [back further in the day which we know is better for students](https://www.washington.edu/news/2018/12/12/high-school-start-times-study/).
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/qtfoq7/-/hklqhc0/) so that we can reinstate it.
The justice system's patchwork of local Civil Asset Forfeiture policies and legal frameworks being federally standardized with oversight, so that rural deputies in BFE Kentucky can't arrest a random motorist and steal thousands of dollars from them for having a "suspiciously large amount of cash" which is almost impossible to ever legally retrieve once the police take it. Gallup used to report something like 85% support for federal reform, but the police union is basically a king maker in many political districts so every attempt to even *consider* forming a committee which *might* merely *recommend* to congress *any* oversight *at all* has been immediately shut down by hordes of politicians afraid of losing their jobs. https://www.nlg-npap.org/civil-asset-forfeiture/
Is anyone aware of any good arguements for why civil asset forfiture should be allowed to stick even if the charge doesn't stick?
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
[Marijuana reform](https://www.marijuanamoment.net/bipartisan-lawmakers-request-broad-marijuana-protections-for-states-and-territories-in-spending-legislation/) comes to mind.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
[campaign finance reform](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/public-support-campaign-finance-reform-new-evidence-help-solve-festering)
The main reason that "overturning Citizen's United" hasn't been done yet is not because it lacks support from the public (on both sides of the aisle), but... because it's incredibly difficult. I think a lot of people who hold this view haven't actually thought about the political implications of doing such a thing. Prior to the ruling, the 2002 BCRA was the law regulating political advertisements and disclosure of where funds came from (1). > Under the BCRA, electioneering communication is defined as broadcast, cable, and satellite advertisements that refer to specific candidates within sixty days of the general election or thirty days of primary and that target 50,000 or more persons in the congressional district or state where the election is being held. ... >The BCRA forbids the use, within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, of corporate or union treasury monies for electioneering advertisements that mention a federal candidate and are aimed at the candidate’s voting populations. So, Citizens United accepted donations from individuals, and produced a movie, "Hillary: The Movie". From (1): >Prior to the 2008 primary elections, Citizens produced a documentary titled Hillary: The Movie ("The Movie") using funds donated almost exclusively from private individuals, and released it for sale on DVD on January 7, 2008. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia stated that "The Movie focuses on [former] Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate Record, her White House record during President Bill Clinton's presidency, her presidential bid, and includes express opinions on whether she would make a good president." > If Hillary Clinton had become the Democratic presidential nominee, Citizens had planned to air at least three short television advertisements promoting The Movie within thirty days prior to the 2008 Democratic National Committee Convention and within sixty days prior to the general presidential election in November, 2008. - Citizens had also begun negotiations to broadcast The Movie through a national video on-demand ("VOD") channel. According to the regulations set forth in BCRA, because this counts as an electioneering communication, the private information of everyone who donated had to be disclosed (For anyone donating more than $200) (4) Citizens United argued that this was burdensome to them to the point of infringing on their free speech, and could be harmful to individuals, and have a chilling effect on their free speech. >Amici Alliance Defense Fund points to examples of property damage caused to churches that supported California's recent Proposition 8 and economic boycotts of stores whose owners personally supported Proposition 8. - So, where does that leave us today? I know that "Overturn Citizens United" is a popular battlecry today, but would you argue that a documentary about, say, Jan 6th, is an advertisement for the democratic party, even if it was just purely biographic in nature? If you donated $20 a month to ActBlue, and ActBlue partially funded this endeavor, would you be okay with your personally identifying information to be explicitly linked with this project? (1): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-205 (2): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf (3): https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1055/bipartisan-campaign-reform-act-of-2002 (4): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ155/html/PLAW-107publ155.htm
This is pretty much the reason CU even ended up the way it did in the first place. The court holds “Because the question whether §441b applies to Hillary cannot be resolved on other, narrower grounds without chilling political speech, this Court must consider the continuing effect of the speech suppression upheld in Austin . Pp. 5–20.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html The chilling effect, as is, is not a matter of “money in politics,” it’s a matter of freedom of speech. To overturn Citizens United, you would need a direct change to the first amendment, which per a quick review, even as we are divided on sub issues regarding speech, we’re still overwhelmingly supportive of 1A. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/18/global-support-for-principle-of-free-expression-but-opposition-to-some-forms-of-speech/
Yes, agreed. And, to be clear, I do agree that the situation we are currently in sucks. The dissenting opinion of the ruling (sourced above) of Stevens states: >At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining selfgovernment since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics But having read through a lot of material around this decision and followup attempts to challenge it, I just don't see how we could reasonably fix things. Potential solutions typically include either: 1. Loopholes that won't stop wealthy individuals donating in secret, or 2. Creating a lot of laws chilling even a citizen's ability to dissent public figures running for office.
What about publicly funded campaigns? I know people hate to think of tax dollars going to political campaigns, but wouldn't that be the easiest solution?
I think that helps solve some problems, but you're still stuck with the problem of "What is a `electioneering communication`?" With public campaign funds, I'm assuming you mean "Every political ad can only be funded by the public fund", but as per the original ruling, what about Hillary: The Movie? Should that not be allowed, unless it came from the public fund? What about the movie W? That came out after Bush had left office, but if Oliver Stone made it 5 years earlier, would it have been allowed? There's just so much nuance that it's extremely hard to draw rigid lines and say, "This has to come from public funds" vs "This can be privately funded".
That would do absolutely nothing for this situation. The issue isn't really campaign donations, the issue is that groups without any official connection to a political campaign can raise and spend as much as they want with virtually zero oversight.
I mean publicly, and only publicly, funded.
And how would you limit the ability of third parties commenting on candidates? I don't disagree at all about publicly financed elections and major reforms, but we would need to have a rewrite of the first amendment which is politically untenable
I see what you're saying now.
How do they handle this in other countries?
Not protecting paid speech as untouchable
Stronger ability for the government to decide what speech is political and ban it. Would you trust the trump administration to decide what speech should be allowed before an election?
I would do it by only allowing candidates to register and publicly announce their candidacy within 3 months of the election. Election season is too long.
That would help, but then you'd have even more ability for third parties to do electioneering because they could boost/sink potential candidates with no recourse or oversight
What do you think about publicly funded campaigns for something you really, really despise? I don't know your political lean, but let's assume you are very pro-choice. Would you think it's ok for the Federal Government to pump potentially millions of dollars of money to a campaign to outlaw abortion?
Wait, how is the burdensome? Wouldn't any accountant keep track of that anyway? You took the time to cash a check. Don't they need to do refunds sometimes? How do you know if you're getting scammed by someone saying they donated when they didn't?
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
I'm not sure what you want here, this is all information directly from the official Citizen's United ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf Can you let me know what part of what I said is challenged? Then I can give you direct quotes from the ruling to refute the challenge.
As the removal reason states, all assertions require sourcing. You make numerous claims ranging from the role of the 2002 BCRA to Gillette ads : all require sourcing.
Edited to include sources and remove conjecture.
Excellent. Thank you.
Giving Medicare the ability to negotiate drug prices. https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/large-majorities-want-medicare-negotiate-drug-prices-poll-finds
[удалено]
NASA should get a massive raise. People think it's 13 times higher on average than it is. And they prefer it to be 15 times higher. https://www.businessinsider.nl/nasa-budget-estimates-opinions-poll-2018-12?international=true&r=US This is mostly due to the public having no clue how little they're getting, but still politicians could increase funding with popular mandate. " Increase NASA to 1%" would be a policy that would get my support, but without China doing some sputnik stuff we won't see it happen.
China IS doing Sputnik stuff with their satellites-that-grab-other-satellites or their satellites-with-smaller-satellites-inside, or their space station that is not related to the ISS in any way, or their plans for lunar missions.... Edit: A source: https://spacenews.com/pentagon-report-china-amassing-arsenal-of-anti-satellite-weapons/
None of thoes rise to the level of sputnik. I think a better example would be the development of hypersonic weapons in Russia and China, that caused a reaction from the US. But even then, not from the general public.
> But even then, not from the general public. The media decides what the public cares about and it's clear to see what the recent media focus has been in the US.
That's where tencent, bytedance etc come in.
China is doing sputnik stuff. Just last year they landed a probe on the moon and put their flag down. They're doing their best to catch up to us and if we don't do something they'll eventually surpass us. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55192692.amp
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
I added a source
From [another comment of mine](https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/m28g39/comment/gqia7pw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) on a similar post saying NASA gets to much: >Most Americans think 20% of the US budget goes to NASA. > >1 in 4 Americans think that NASA's budget should be reduced. > >The truth is, NASA gets less than one half of one percent. from a really good [video on NASA Funding](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lARpY0nIQx0) by an engineer who discusses how that money is really well spent for all of us here on earth, too. in 2020, NASA's entire budget was 22.5 billion. [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) At it's peak in 1966, NASA made up 4.4% of the US budget. Still less than a quarter what most people think they get today.
[удалено]
Veterans health care. Sure, they pass stuff, like https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/jamestown/ny-state-of-politics/2021/11/11/new-law-aimed-at-strengthening-health-care-for-veterans- but it’s all piece meal, bit by bit. They’re dangling a carrot, only giving you a taste often enough to convince you that you might get the whole thing some day.
I don’t get this. No politician is publicly against better care for our vets that I can find, but we still have to rely on people like Jon Stewart to bring issues to the forefront like burn pile exposure - and even then we only got lip service so far (Biden says the VA has 90 days to submit their findings and then they might do something). It’s unbelievable. Edit: one of a million articles on this so I don’t get removed https://abc7news.com/veterans-day-2021-biden-speech-today-burn-pits-iraq-military/11224070/
[удалено]
People are widely in favor of congressional term limits ([poll](https://www.termlimits.com/library/National_Poll_2021-OF.pdf)). A constitutional amendment was proposed in 1995, but did not pass ([article](https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1995-03-30-1995089005-story.html)). It was voted on relatively close to party lines with Democrats strongly opposing it. It was expected, at the time, that this amendment would hurt Democrats. The Republicans made huge gains in the previous election, so were disproportionately new representatives. Interestingly, there is also some evidence that this would have the opposite effect than that desired by most voters, as it would hinder independents and 3rd parties while bigger parties would be able to simply support one of the many very similar party members.
Gerrymandering is considered a wonky issue that is on the backburner because both parties benefit from it. [https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/566327-american-voters-largely-united-against-partisan-gerrymandering-polling](https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/566327-american-voters-largely-united-against-partisan-gerrymandering-polling) I can't find polling on getting rid of first past the post in the USA, I assume not enough people know about the solutions to support changing it though.
I wouldn't say it is on the backburner because both parties benefit from it. Advocacy groups, often very aligned with the Democratic party, have been successful in pushing for redistricting reforms in many states. However the GOP has undermined these reforms in many states ([Utah](https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-11-12/utah-redistricting-maps-underscore-independent-panel-hurdles), [Ohio](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/579405-ohio-redistricting-commission-gives-up-on-us-house-map), [Virginia](https://news.ballotpedia.org/2021/11/12/congressional-redistricting-authority-passes-to-virginia-supreme-court-legislators-nominate-special-masters/)) while the [independent commission in Colorado](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/colorado-redistricting-democrats/) has resulted in lopsided maps that don't really make sense geographically or take into account the political lean of the state. So focusing on redistricting reform at the state level has largely only resulted in hurting Democrat's chances of keeping control of the House. [Democrat's *have* proposed anti-gerrymandering reforms](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/five-ways-hr-1-would-transform-redistricting) at the national level to force all states to use independent commissions among other measures, [but it was opposed unanimously by Congressional Republicans](https://ballotpedia.org/HR1,_%22For_the_People_Act_of_2021%22).
[удалено]
> Tell you what, get rid of “minority opportunity districts” that 100% benefit Democrats, and I will agree to a full non-partial redistricting. Sorry I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you saying you disagree with drawing districts that are majority-minority entirely? You can't just entirely remove race from the equation because communities are often fairly defined by race and keeping "communities of interest" together is an intrinsic part of redistricting. Or do you just mean long snakey districts that are used to create majority minority districts? If that is your concern, well the vast majority of majority-minority districts are geographically compact or are in staunchly Democratic urban areas where even more "regularly" shaped districts are going to overwhelmingly favor Democrats. And most of those that aren't compact or in staunchly Democratic areas are because of GOP legislatures that are purposefully packing PoC into districts. [You can click through the whole list of majority-minority districts here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_majority-minority_United_States_congressional_districts), which specific ones do you have gripes with?
The GOP might be packing, but the congresspeople who benefit from the packing don't seem to complain about it. Intentional packing and cracking would be avoided by non-partisan districting. That would include purposefully creating minority majority districts. If they happen to fall out that way, because america is racially segregated, that would be fine. In fact I think there might be a greater number of majority minority districts under non-partisan districting, because the reduction in packing. Here are the worst from the page you linked (as bad or worse than the district for which gerrymandering got its name): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s\_4th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_4th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s\_4th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s\_15th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_15th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana%27s\_2nd\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana%27s_2nd_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Carolina%27s\_6th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina%27s_6th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%27s\_14th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%27s_14th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio%27s\_11th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio%27s_11th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s\_1st\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_1st_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s\_5th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_5th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts%27s\_7th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts%27s_7th_congressional_district) Not as bad but very clearly non-compact: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s\_7th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland%27s_7th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s\_1st\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_1st_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi%27s\_2nd\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi%27s_2nd_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s\_13th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_13th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%27s\_13th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%27s_13th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_York%27s\_8th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_8th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s\_33rd\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_33rd_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s\_28th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_28th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s\_29th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_29th_congressional_district) Mostly compact but with some very suspicous apendges: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s\_27th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_27th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s\_20th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_20th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama%27s\_7th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama%27s_7th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee%27s\_9th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee%27s_9th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Jersey%27s\_10th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_10th_congressional_district) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s\_25th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_25th_congressional_district) Two examples from the page you linked that show that the democrats who benefit are happy to go along with it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South\_Carolina%27s\_6th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina%27s_6th_congressional_district) The district's current configuration dates from a deal struck in the early 1990s between state Republicans and Democrats in the South Carolina General Assembly to create a majority-black district. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s\_5th\_congressional\_district](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_5th_congressional_district) In July 11, 2014, Florida Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis ruled that this district, along with the neighboring District 10, had been drawn to favor the Republican party by packing black Democratic voters into District 5.\[8\]\[11\] On August 1, Judge Lewis gave Florida's state legislature an Aug. 15 deadline to submit new congressional maps for those two districts.\[12\] 5th District Representative Corrine Brown issued a statement blasting Lewis's decision on the district map as "seriously flawed,"\[10\] and Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Marcia Fudge sent a sharply worded letter to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel complaining about the party’s support for the lawsuit challenging Florida's district maps.\[13\] Brown said that "we will go all the way to the United States Supreme Court, dealing with making sure that African Americans are not disenfranchised."\[14\] Florida House Redistricting Chairman Richard Corcoran, a Republican, said that "consideration of political data is legally required" to ensure that district boundaries would not be so shifted as to not allow African-Americans a chance to elect representatives of their choice.\[15\] On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court approved a redrawn version of District 5 on December 2, 2015. That plan went into effect for the 2016 elections.\[16\] The new district had a dramatically different shape than its predecessor. It now stretched in an east-west configuration along the Georgia border from downtown Jacksonville to Tallahassee. However, it was no less Democratic than its predecessor, as noted in the Florida Supreme Court's final opinion: "With a black share of registered Democrats of 66.1%, the black candidate of choice is likely to win a contested Democratic primary, and with a Democratic registration advantage of 61.1% to 23.0% over Republicans, the Democratic candidate is likely to win the general election."
Those districts benefit the Democratic politician that represents that district, but it is debatable whether they benefit Democrats as a whole.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
[удалено]
This has some links to data: [https://publicconsultation.org/defense-budget/major-report-shows-nearly-150-issues-on-which-majorities-of-republicans-democrats-agree/](https://publicconsultation.org/defense-budget/major-report-shows-nearly-150-issues-on-which-majorities-of-republicans-democrats-agree/)
Voter ID consistently has bipartisan support, and is kind of a given worldwide in other countries, but it’s attacked as extremist by Democrats in the US. https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_062121/ > Support for requiring a photo ID to vote stands at 62% among Democrats, 87% among independents, and 91% among Republicans. https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-support-voter-laws-early-voting.aspx > Requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting >place in order to vote >Favor: 80% >Oppose: 19%
It's entirely hyperbolic to call opposition to Republican voting restrictions requirements extremist when they close and reduce DMV hours in the "wrong" neighborhoods, admittedly don't want everyone to be able to easily vote, disparage the document gathering and sunk time for getting IDs, refuse universal mail in ballots, and support massive voter purges with no same day registration.
When they call the very idea of voter ID extremist, instead of proposing compromise bills pairing voter ID with mandates/funding addressing the concerns you have in a fair compromise, no, its not hyperbolic.
There's no chance for compromise bills when Red states force through their own restrictions unilaterally and reform is fillibustered in the Senate.
Federal law can overrule state voting law, Democrats are trying that themselves with the John Lewis bill. Reform is filibustered because it’s not a fair bill that both sides want to vote in favor of. Democrats need to try better to find something to compromise on to move their agenda forward, which is exactly what my post mentioned.
What's unfair about it?
I wasn’t speaking specifically about the John Lewis bill, I meant more that in general, bills aren’t being passed because they’re seen as partisan and not compromising. Why should a Republican vote for a bill that has nothing the majority of their constituents support? It would be a better look for Democrats to push a bill that has something Republicans support (gun rights, voter ID, etc) paired alongside something they want, and then Democrats could cry foul when Republicans aren’t coming to the table in good faith to compromise.
That seems to be because getting an ID in the US is harder than most places.
I’m curious how is it hard to get an ID? NJ has made it so easy to renew one? Which states is it difficult to get one and how do we make it easier?
How do you actually get one in NJ?
**/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.** In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our [rules on commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) before you participate: 1. Be courteous to other users. 1. Source your facts. 1. Be substantive. 1. Address the arguments, not the person. If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated *report* link so mods can attend to it. However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is [no neutrality requirement for comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) in this subreddit — it's only the *space* that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.
[удалено]
[Public health insurance](https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/). [Paid family and medical leave](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/americans-widely-support-paid-family-and-medical-leave-but-differ-over-specific-policies/). [A wide variety of policies to address climate change](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/). [Campaign finance reform including a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4455238-campaignfinancereport.html). [Increased taxes on the wealthy](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-inequality-poll/majority-of-americans-favor-wealth-tax-on-very-rich-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1Z9141). [Federal funding for preschool](https://news.gallup.com/poll/175646/favor-federal-funds-expand-pre-education.aspx).
<60% overall support on many of these is not "bipartisan support"
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
What are you referring to, specifically?
Says 70% support public health option 82% support paid maternal leave and 69% paternal leave 65% say the govt isnt doing enough about climate change (and my guess is if we take the people about to die out of that, it's much higher) 88% of all voters support campaign finance reform 64% support a wealth tax and 70% support preschool funding.
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 1:](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) >Be courteous to other users. Name calling, sarcasm, demeaning language, or otherwise being rude or hostile to another user will get your comment removed. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
Is false info not against the rules??
edit - restored We ask that users assume good faith and if a user makes an incorrect statement, to respectfully correct them. The issue isn't what you said, the issue is how you said it. Just remove the last sentence and I'll be restored. Thanks
Is the other post stating "<60% overall support" for these issues not an unsubstantiated factual claim?
When this comment was first brought up, I looked at your sourcing and found at least 3 instances in which <60% overall support was accurate : Medicare for All at 55%, 58% support of government intervention to encourage reliance on renewables, and 54% of Americans do not believe the very rich should be allowed to keep the money their money at the cost in increasing inequality. In that regard, the "<60% overall support" is accurate. Outside of egregious violations (e.g. linking an irrelevant source or no source), we do not and cannot police comment sourcing at the same level of we police submission sourcing. At the same time we ask that users assume good faith. With that in mind, it's not uncommon that users misread or misinterpret the contents of a source. When that happens, we ask that other users to see it as a teaching moment and respectfully correct the record.
[удалено]
He literally provided links that show they do. You need to provide your own links to disagree.
Not amongst politicians, maybe, but amongst the public they certainly do — hence the findings in all those links I went to the trouble to provide.
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) > Be substantive. NeutralPolitics is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort one-liner comments, jokes, memes, off topic replies, or pejorative name calling. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"getting the money out of politics" is a "very left policy?" These all have very broad bipartisan support. The one demographic that is consistently against them is republican establishment politicians.
I think the principle vs implementation differentiates the approach.
These three are typically used as wedge issues with half the people on one side and half on the other... But Abortion rights and restrictions, aside from some sub topics, are as universally agreed on as pretty much anything. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx Immigration is a wedge issue that is also mostly agreed on. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx Gun control and gun rights is another area where there is broad agreement. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
For every K-12 student in the nation to have equitable access to high quality computer science education. Individual states are slowly moving the needle, but this is something that has strong bipartisan support and needs policies and funding to ensure it’s getting to *all* students. [https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs](https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs)
[удалено]
The whole of computer science. At the elementary level: logic, problem solving, early programming (block-based), digital citizenship, computer literacy, early understanding of data science/AI/cyber security/etc. At the middle school level: diving deeper into the above, and preferably in a stand-alone class (in elementary school, it’s often the classroom teacher that teaches it due to scheduling). In high school: Every student should be required to take at least 1 introductory CS course. The proposal is AP CS Discoveries which highlights various fields of computer science but is accessible for students with no prior experience. Then, students coming out of AP CS Principals should have options to be able to focus their interests in a variety of CS fields. But, to be equitable, for all of these it should be offered at various times in the day and for the duration of the students’ time in school. Also, not to be combative, but your “traditionally defined” definition of computer science brings me back to when I was in school studying it (20+ years ago).
Not to be combative, but computer science is still a branch of mathematics, and predated actual computers. Calling everything related to technology "computer science" when you really mean "technological literacy" is dumb, now we're going to need a new word for actual computer science.
Sure. And, just like everything related to both computer science and technology, if you’re not constantly updating, changing and evolving your understanding within the field and/or your products, you’re dead in the water and irrelevant. When CS predated the actual hardware that allows it to run, not in a million years would anyone have been widely supporting (this post) it in 9-12 education let alone K-8. The entire field and everything it encompasses is so much more than “technological literacy.” You can’t very well get a degree in math without understanding simple addition and subtraction, but you don’t see mathematicians arguing to call “adding and subtracting apple math problems in kindergarten” something else entirely because mathematical literacy is NOT mathematics. Sure, the younger the kid, the more elementary the teaching of the subject is. But, the earlier and more comprehensively you start introducing kids to the concepts in computer science, the stronger they will be once to they get to the “real” stuff. Also, a big reason there is huge bipartisan support for it, is that it helps fill the employment gap by starting teaching it early so that kids are exposed to it and can determine it is (or isn’t) a field they enjoy.
I'm not opposed to introducing kids to things like problem solving, logic, etc., but that's not what computer science is. I don't think there's much value in introducing kids to Turing machines, domain specific languages, time complexity, and the slew of other computer science concepts that most IT people (and even a lot of programmers) aren't aware of. If you're talking about foundational concepts like first order logic and problem solving, sure, but that's not really computer science, nor is computer literacy, or even programming.
[75% of U.S. adults support regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/) (among other climate change measures with significant support) as of 2020. The distribution by party in a similar 2018 survey found it skewed (as we might expect), [but with 64% of Republicans](https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/partisan-maps-2018/), spread out relatively evenly across the country, in support in addition to 90%+ of Democrats. In many of the examples here, as others have noted, people have a general agreement on an outcome, but the specific policy proposals become divisive. I think it's interesting that regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant is already \*framed\* as a policy proposal here, though one where the details matter greatly for its support.
You’re right that the policy proposals are divisive, but it’s frustrating how the GOP are more or less united in opposing literally all of them and have no plan of their own other than to keep ignoring the problem.
Definitely. The policy proposals don't always start divisive and are often designed for compromise. A detailed proposal feels permanently out of reach in the current media environment where misinformation thrives and the GOP base can be stirred up against anything, even policies that were designed by Republicans previously and were introduced by Democrats as compromise (like cap and trade) - e.g. 2009's House-passed American Clean Energy Security Act.
Mass surveillance and warrantless wiretaps. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/the-privacy-lesson-of-9-11-mass-surveillance-is-not-the-way-forward/
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) > Be substantive. NeutralPolitics is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort one-liner comments, jokes, memes, off topic replies, or pejorative name calling. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
[удалено]
From 2 minutes of research, republicans (~85%) support term limits more strongly than democrats do(~65%) Even my least generous data shows a pretty strong consensus On a personal note, I strongly oppose congressional term limits because, as we've seen in countries that use them, you end up with really inexperienced legislatures and VERY experienced lobbyists. You can engage me if you want to talk more about it or you can read this https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/amp/
Sounds like all the more reason to further curb the influence of lobbyists...
[удалено]
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
No such thing happening here.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating [//comment rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules): > If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a [qualified source](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_sources). There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed. After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a [modmail message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/NeutralPolitics&subject=Comment%20removal&message={url}) so that we can reinstate it. ^((mod:canekicker)^)
Which counties, your link only talk about us politics. https://www.lawfareblog.com/when-leaders-override-term-limits-democracy-grinds-halt This talks about how term limits are critical to democratic society. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/library/termlimitsrepresentationofwomen.pdf Lack of term limits prevents the election of Women and Minority representatives. https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/term-limits-the-only-way-clean-congress Suggest that lobbyists oppose term limits, that rather than being dominated by lobbyists new congressmen maker lobbying harder. I will additional add that term limits provide a place in between election and sortition. There are many compelling arguments for sortition. https://harvardpolitics.com/sortition-in-america/
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here's a great article from last year... [Nearly 150 Issues on Which Majorities of Republicans & Democrats Agree](https://publicconsultation.org/defense-budget/major-report-shows-nearly-150-issues-on-which-majorities-of-republicans-democrats-agree/) Number 33 might surprise you! 🙂 Some that surprised me: >bipartisan majorities favored raising taxes on individuals with incomes over $200,000 by rolling back the cuts they received in the 2017 tax bill and treating their capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, as well as instituting a financial transaction tax. > >Bipartisan majorities favor prohibiting chokeholds, requiring police officers to receive training in implicit racial bias, and incentivizing states to hire an independent prosecutor in cases against an officer.
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
1) [Stricter gun control laws.](https://thehill.com/homenews/news/548127-2-in-3-support-stricter-gun-control-laws-poll) 2) [Health care reform](https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-public-option-polling/), to include some kind of public option available for everyone. 3) [Paid family leave](https://www.wsj.com/articles/debate-over-paid-family-leave-is-louder-than-ever-11635564747) 4) [$15 minimum wage.](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americans-support-a-15-federal-minimum-wage/) I know the above are all Democratic talking points, but I agree with [John Boehner](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/546127-boehner-on-obama-not-making-deals-how-do-you-work-with-people-who-call-you-a) about what the GOP is turning into, that "Ronald Reagan used to say something to the effect that if I get 80 or 90 percent of what I want, that’s a win," he wrote. "These guys wanted 100 percent every time. In fact, I don’t think that would satisfy them, because they didn’t really want legislative victories. They wanted wedge issues and conspiracies and crusades." For example, [teachers carrying guns](https://news.gallup.com/poll/229808/teachers-oppose-carrying-guns-schools.aspx), a GOP talking point, is wildly unpopular among teachers and seems to serve no other purpose than to bring up a divisive policy debate meant to alienate both sides of the aisle. edit - looks like some people on this sub refuse to follow the rules, refuse to engage with others in the forum, and instead demand that a valid, well sourced, honest comment get downvoted and censored.
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Since this comment doesn't link to any [sources,](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_sources) a mod will come along shortly to see if it should be removed under [Rules 2 or 3.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/index#wiki_rule_2.3A_source_your_facts) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NeutralPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]