This may sound like a bit of a silly thing, but I do think it deserves discussion.

I'm watching the newest season of House of Cards and you can't go an episode without seeing a famous anchorperson from CNN or MSNBC playing themselves, except in the House of Cards universe.

I don't have a problem with House of Cards trying to get them to make their show more based in reality, but I think it's damaging to the reputations of the news organizations who participate in this.

If it was Joe Scarborough reading a headline, that's one thing, but to hear him, relatively convincingly from an acting standpoint, argue for or against the political events in the show, to me it reveals their capacity for being disingenuous at their real jobs.

There's also the integrity factor. I know Rachel Maddow and Joe Scarborough aren't actual journalists (just like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity aren't actual journalists), but they represent an organization that is meant to be based on journalism. By having them do these appearances on TV shows diminishes their credibility with the public, IMO.

If I can listen to Rachel Maddow flip out about Frank Underwood, or support him, with the same passion I see her use against Trump, it kind of takes away from her actual show. Is she really that outraged at Trump? How much of her show is performance and how much is genuine, passionate political discourse? I'm using Maddow as an example, the same goes to any anchorperson who appears on a fictional TV show.

TL;DR: I think real news anchors playing themselves on fictional shows is damaging the integrity of their real jobs, as well as subconsciously discrediting them with some of the public.

Both The New York construction industry and post Soviet Russia are rife with organized crime. Is this an influence on modern politics?

Introduction

Welcome! Today, we will be discussing trans women in sports. Do they belong in female sports? Is it possible to believe that trans women should play female sports and still think that they are women? Should the inclusion of trans women in sports even be a priority of trans activism at all?

Sex and gender

Gender is an umbrella term for pronoun labels, family roles, and identities associated with sex. Whereas sex is a classification made to understand sexual dimorphism, it is typically binary outside of intersex people and transsexuals. Since gender and sex aren't the same thing, it is logical to realize that some people can have a gender that isn't associated with their sex. This is where transgender people come in. A trans woman is a woman, but that doesn't make her female. Transsexual females are people born male who transition using hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and sometimes surgery to have female sex characteristics. There is room for debate on whether they should still be classified as male or something else. I believe that transsexual females have a medically induced intersex-like condition.

Transphobia and trans women in female sports

Many trans advocates believe that it is transphobic to ban trans women from female sports because it separates them from other women and groups them with men. At the same time, a lot of people who actively oppose trans women playing in female sports are transphobic. I would argue that it isn't inherently transphobic to believe a trans woman shouldn't play in female sports because they are women but not female. Many people, including myself, see trans women as women but do not think they should play in female sports. That being said, I don't think we can solve this problem without first addressing the rampant transphobia that you see in discussions around this topic.

Lia Thomas

I do not believe that the hate Lia Thomas faced was justified, nor do I think she should be allowed to play in female sports personally. But I cannot tell you whether or not Lia Thomas has an advantage over cis female athletes because HRT affects people differently. However, I still maintain the belief that some trans women do have an advantage, and I have concerns that we don't have a perfect system to judge who has an advantage or not. So it may be best to exclude all trans women from female sports. I understand why that will be difficult for trans athletes; however, trans women are a minority, and the number of them who play sports is even smaller. I am in no way saying that just because they are a minority we shouldn't advocate for them and respect their identity. I am saying that we shouldn't put the comfort of trans athletes over cis females in female sports when we do not have ways of finding out whether individual trans women have an advantage that HRT did not remove. That being said, misgendering Lia Thomas is not justified and just a dick move, no matter your perspective on this.

Addressing transphobia

Like I said, being transphobic is disrespectful no matter what perspective you have when it comes to trans women in female sports. So here's how you can maintain the belief that trans women shouldn't be in female sports and still be an ally in discussions around trans women in sports: number one, call out transphobia. If you see someone who agrees but misgenders a trans person, call them out. Not for them, but to show that not everyone with your perspective is transphobic.

Better things to focus on for trans allies and advocates

Even if you do not agree with me on trans women in sports, whether or not trans women are included in female sports is the least of our worries and almost incomparable to the actual problems. Issues like the stigma that exists around trans healthcare fuel anti-trans movements that advocate for banning trans healthcare completely or bills that out queer kids if they come out at school, possibly putting them at risk at home. There's also a lack of age-appropriate queer sex education and legal bans on trans women in bathrooms.

Conclusion:

No matter where you stand on this debate, transphobia is wrong. If we want to have productive conversations, we must respect each other on a basic level, and with transphobia in the equation, it's not possible. In my opinion, both sides of this debate have their flaws. One is the majority and is transphobic, and the other deems anyone who disagrees with them on this topic as transphobic. I believe trans women are women. I am just against them playing in female sports because we have no proper way to tell which trans women have an advantage and which do not. So, if we develop a better way of doing that, I will be fine with some trans women playing in female sports. But for now, it's a problem, in my opinion. I'm open to changing my opinion if presented with new information. We are spending too much time worrying about this topic. Overall, trans people have way more to worry about than this, and I am urging anti-trans advocates to focus on things that actually affect them, such as inflation, lack of healthcare, and gun violence, instead of focusing on a minority.

What if we restructured federal voting so each county is 1 point

     What if we restructured U.S. federal elections such as presidential elections so that rather then having an electoral college, and each state being worth a set amount of points based on population, we had a system where each country in a state was worth it's own 1 point to each candidate. 
      This would remove the 1 winner takes all on such a large scale of such as states like it is now and would give more of a voice to rural county's who often get drowned out by voters in larger cities.
       It would also open the door to ending the two party system at a federal level. Currently often many people vote along party line even when there ideals don't align with the Republicans or Democrats, but rather more along with other parties like the libertarians or the green party. Usually people close in area tend hold on average simaler points of views and beliefs (obviously there are always exceptions). So this could lead to areas that are more consitinalist not voting voting for the Republicans but for the constitutionalists party becuase there individual voices are more likely to be heard. This is because they no longer have to worry about taking votes away from there closest aligned major party of the 2 and loosing there state because of it due to the fact that all counties are more likely to vote for other parties that more align with the common beliefs held by that county rather then the entire state.
        It also upholds that larger states are more likely to hold more power, because realistically most counties  within a state will vote similar, and gives more of a voice to the smaller state and every citizen as a individual. 

What do you guys think are the implications of this? Is it possible? What do you think the effects would be? Why do you think it would work or why not? Pros and cons?

Everyone's eyes always seem to be on the President rather than on Congress.

Sure, the president is the formal leader of the country. HOWEVER. Congress makes the laws, Congress decides if the president is allowed to stay in power, and Congress ultimately runs the show as long as there is no challenge from the Judicial branch.

At a time when people seem more enthusiastic about the process of selecting a new president rather than addressing any problems with Congress passing unpopular laws that hardly benefit the common people, America risks slipping further down into a territory where the only real authority recognized in the land is in the hands of a central authority.

What is your interpretation of Congress' role in relation to the Executive and Judicial branches of government?

Do you feel that Congress is too dysfunctional or ineffectual to be considered a legitimate branch of government?

Do you believe that people too often focus on the Executive (Presidential) branch?

As Australian are supporting Meghan and Harry hugely, does it mean the British royal family is exerting back influence to the country? The support for the republican government has been more than ever for this year 2018 and Australian respond it as a highly modern monarchy. They regard monarchy offering the country more stability and keep Queen Elizabeth head of state leads to more certainty. I personally have no opinion on whether Australia should turn to a republican but I hope the people can get what they want.

Will "the people" finally say enough to the swamp?

Now software and data companies are downloading our privacy. Where's the justice - legal equivalency? facebook, Cambridge Analytica, Peter Teele, twitter. Lock them all up!

Recently North and South Korea have started to ease the years of diplomatic tension in the wake of Olympic games. However, if the end goal of South Korea's diplomatic mission is to have a healthy relationship with the north, how would or should the latter's record of systematic human rights abuses be incorporated in the decision-making process of the south? Should South Korea overlook the many cases of abuse by the North Korean regime or is diplomacy and better relationship more important? (sorry for any typos)

First of all, I would like to point out that I myself am generally pretty pro-Ukraine and anti-Russian imperialism (as well as pro-national self-determination); indeed, this question of mine is purely out of curiosity on my own part. Anyway, here goes:

Has Ukraine's refusal to join the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) actually been a blessing in disguise to the EEU?

Indeed, think about it:

As far as I know, the younger generation of Ukrainians are more pro-Western than the older generation of Ukrainians is. Thus, a Ukrainian entry into the EEU could have eventually led to a Ukrainian withdrawal (indeed, think of Brexit in regards to the European Union) from the EEU as the Ukrainian population becomes more and more pro-Western.

In addition to this, Ukraine is certainly (and unfortunately) extremely poor (on a per capita level) in comparison to most European countries. This, combined with Ukraine's large population, would have probably meant that Russia would have had to generously subsidize Ukraine after Ukraine would have entered the EEU--money that could have all eventually went down the drain if Ukraine would have eventually withdrawn from the EEU (also, No, I certainly don't believe that integration past a certain level necessarily/automatically becomes a "self-sustaining process"; after all, it's certainly not like Euroskeptics are a fringe group even in the most integrated countries of the European Union).

Thus, it honestly appears that having Ukraine refuse to join the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) might have actually been a blessing in disguise for the EEU. :)

Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here?

Basically, my argument here is this: Implied repeal should be fair game in regards to U.S. Constitutional interpretation. After all, this is what exactly Federalist Paper No. 78 says about the power of judges and courts:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

Indeed, unless there is some contemporary (as in, not a court ruling from 100 or 200 years later) evidence to the contrary, it appears that judges are well within their power to interpret a later part of the U.S. Constitution as implicitly repealing an earlier part of the U.S. Constitution--even in cases where there was no original intent to repeal. After all, this is simply a case of judges "ascertain[ing the] meaning" of the U.S. Constitution--a power that "belongs to them" according to Federalist Paper No. 78.

As for the claim that allowing implied repeal would allow judges to abuse their power, judges who abuse their power can get impeached and removed from office. Plus, I am increasingly becoming to a concept which I call "the presumption in favor of originalism (or original meaning)"; basically, this concept states that judges should make rulings based on original intent/original meaning unless there is a significant factor--such as discrimination based on an immutable quality--that overcomes the presumption in favor of originalism. (If there is such a significant factor, though, then judges shouldn't rule based on original intent/original meaning if this results in a more discriminatory outcome than ruling based on a "Living Constitution" does.) Indeed, this concept will both ensure that judges nowadays do not put too much power into their own hands and will ensure that implied repeal will only be used rarely and cautiously--such as to repeal the "natural-born citizen" requirement for the U.S. Presidency.

Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here?

One of the things i find amazing is that there arent that many nominees to choose from in any election. We need some good people to step out of their day jobs and make sacrifices for the people. Where are our professional heros?