You're assuming that the questions are asked solely for the public record.

Here's another reason...

Members of Congress want video of themselves asking good questions that will be broadcast by their local news media and / or used in campaign commercials.

And another... Often times you'll notice that committee seats are empty during hearings.

That's because members come and go during the hearing.

It's possible that one member asks a question that was asked by another member earlier in the day before the first member arrived.

(Although I don't think that was the case in the Cohen hearing, as the entire committee seemed to be present for the duration.)

Members of Congress may not fully trust the witness.

This is especially the case with Michael Cohen, who has been convicted of lying to Congress.

Asking a witness about the same thing multiple times makes them more likely to contradict themselves (or their written testimony) if they're lying.

Witnesses sometimes dodge questions or give incomplete answers.

Members that aren't satisfied may ask again to press for more information.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) specifically gave this as a reason for one of his questions during Cohen's recent hearing .

I'm going to give you another opportunity to respond what you brushed off earlier regarding your own statement during this testimony...

Grandstanding.

The members may be looking to create clips and soundbites of themselves that can be politically beneficial in the future.

On the flip side, when the witness is themselves a politician, opponents who sit on the committee can use the hearing as an opportunity to politically damage the witness.

In the example you cite, it was an extremely important question that links the president directly to a felony.

If you have been asked this multiple times, it reinforces the answer and makes it impossible for you to walk back your answer later.

Normally prosecutors ask the same question multiple time you are looking for any inconsistencies in the answer.

Congress members prepare ahead of time When members of Congress are part of a hearing like this one, they're not going to be coming up with their questions on the spot.

They will have prepared extensively in order to make sure that they ask all the questions they need in order to get the information (or make all the statements) they want.

In theory they could adjust the questions that they are going to ask based on which questions other members have already asked, but the more you alter a prepared plan

the more likely it is that you'll make mistakes when trying to implement that plan.

Asking a question multiple times is far preferable to skipping a question because you mistakenly thought that it had already been asked, or because you were removing other questions and it got mixed in.

So they stick with what's safe, and ask their questions even if those questions have already been asked during the hearing.

Public Congressional hearings are nothing but spectacles for voters masked as a serious inquiry.

Nothing ever comes out of them besides hours of video footage, as Congressmen don't need these hearings to arrive to any important decisions.

At best, these hearings serve to justify a proposed law that's already been decided upon by one of the parties.

At worst it's just a waste of taxpayer money and a way for individual Congressmen to show off how tough and inquisitive they are.

In this context it becomes clear that Congressmen only ask questions which make them look good on TV.

And if one Congressmen finds a question that sounds good to the average Joe in their state, there's a high chance others would copycat them.

It could also be explained by laziness - since Congressmen don't really care about what's being said at the hearing, they're likewise too lazy to bother to follow what's been asked before.

Sure, a few people would laugh at their supposed ignorance, but most voters won't notice that something's amiss.

Question: I must've seen at least 3 Congressmen ask Michael Cohen, President Trump's former personal attorney, who Individual 1 was, despite the fact that in the beginning he had already said it was Donald Trump, and despite the fact that previous members had already asked him that question, as well.  What is the reason for this? What benefit does it have when the statement is already in the record?

Why do members of Congress in committee hearings ask witnesses the same question multiple times?

Members of Congress want video of themselves asking good questions that will be broadcast by their local news media and / or used in campaign commercials. In this      context it becomes clear that Congressmen only ask questions which make them look good on TV - this can also be used to create clips and soundbites that can be politically beneficial in the future.  Asking a witness about the same thing multiple times makes them more likely to contradict themselves if they're lying.  Members that aren't satisfied may then ask again to press for more information. Congress members  will have prepared extensively in order to make sure that they ask all the  questions they need in order to get the information (or make all the statements )they want.

Members of congress want their questions broadcast for public support. Also, witnesses are more likely to contradict themselves by being asked the same question more than once if they are telling lies and thus this method reinforces their answer.

Members of congress want their questions broadcast for public support. Witnesses are more likely to contradict themselves by being asked the same question more than once if they are telling lies and thus this method reinforces their answer.


Sedition, the technical legal term for what you're talking about, is prohibited by section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

This dates all the way back to the colonial era, and was originally used to suppress people pushing for India's independence from Britain.

The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1962 that section 124A was constitutional, but that speech or actions only constitute sedition if it incites or tends to incite violence or disorder.

There is apparently some ongoing issues with this, with allegations of various substance that people are being charged with sedition despite their speech and/or actions not meeting this standard.

But that's not terribly relevant to your question, though it might explain why it is of importance to you.

Answering your question beyond that is difficult, however.

Free speech is enshrined in India's constitution, and indeed in several international treaties and conventions that India is a part of.

But the jurisprudence on the matter seems inconsistent, with courts of all levels (including the Supreme Court) tending to produce conflicting precedents.

The simplest explanation may be historical momentum: this part of the IPC has been around for a long time, and it can be difficult to repeal or alter (or, at times, even find ) laws that are so old.

This gets exacerbated by the idea that, in principle, Supreme Court decisions have already made alterations to the law, and legislatures across the globe tend to be slow to make such formal alterations.

This is apparent in the United States, too, where many laws, state constitutions, etc.

formally contain provisions that have been held unconstitutional.

These have no legal force, and nobody tries to enforce them, so formally altering them is basically just political theater to most people (though technically, if the US constitution was suitably amended they could be rendered valid once again), and so time better spent elsewhere.

I'm not familiar with India, but in general, guaranteed freedoms are never absolute .

This would be a recipe for anarchy.

The enforcing authority (the government) has to limit every freedom at least a little, or else that freedom could then be used to infringe upon other freedoms.

In the US, freedom of speech is pretty sacred and generally interpreted by the courts very expansively -- that's why it's so hard in the US to sue someone for libel or prosecute someone for treason.

But even in the US there are serious limitations.

As a basic example, it is illegal to use speech to directly incite a crime.

Governments Crave Self-Preservation

The degree may vary, but all sufficiently large organisations eventually start gaining traits that promote its preservation.

Some see it as a government's duty to ensure it doesn't get toppled easily, others will point out that governments without such measures are likely to, in the long run, be toppled more often, leading to an evolutionary selection of sorts for governments with such measures.

Restrictions on speech against inciting a toppling of a government are one example of such measure.

(Others include monopoly on military force, on legislation and enforcement of law etc.)

In a democracy, you are allowed to advocate a complete overthrow of the existing government, via voting.

While it is commonplace today, the peaceful transfer of power from one government to the next is just that - an existing government stepping down and allowing itself to be overthrown.

What you can't do is advocate violence, whether to overthrow a government or any other reason, because advocating a crime is generally not considered protected speech.

Since I have found that most of the answers are not India specific, I am adding to them.

In India we derive freedom of speech and expression from Article 19 (1) (a).

This freedom is (like all the other 5) subjected to reasonable restrictions, 19 (2) specifically on freedom of speech.

Clause (2) of the article puts 8 restriction on freedom of speech namely, Sovereignty and integrity of state Security of state Friendly relations with foreign states

Public order Decency or morality Contempt of court Defamation Incitement of offence

If your speech is not hurting any of these then you're good and can oppose the government but inciting to rebel

threatens point 1

IF government is legally established (as it has people's mandate) and also point 8 to some extent (IPC Section 124A, but it's removal is debated).As sovereignty and democracy are basic elements of our constitution (Kesavanand Bharati case)

it can't be amended and hence as long as democracy and rule of law is there you can't incite to rebel against a just and democratically elected government.

Because there is a law prohibiting it!

'Free Speech' is an ideal.

Many constitutions, written or unwritten, set great store by it.

But no country I know of allows unlimited free speech.

They all draw the line when it is misrepresentation, harmful, obscene, incitement to criminal action etc.

I know we're discussing India.

But it is interesting to consider whether America's beloved Second Amendment, often interpreted as enabling citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government, implies freedom to discuss and advocate such an action.

Question: In India we are not allowed to incite people to rebel against the government. Why are we not allowed to do so?

Why can't we use freedom of speech and expression to incite people to rebel against government in India?

Sedition is prohibited by section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).  The simplest explanation may be historical momentum: this part of the IPC has been around for a long time, and it can be difficult to repeal or alter (or even  find) laws that are so old. The enforcing authority (the government) has to limit  every  freedom at least a little, or else that freedom could then be used to infringe upon other freedoms.  Also, governments crave the notion of self-preservation.

Sedition is prohibited by Section 124A of the IPC and generally governments crave self-preservation and infringement of freedom to prevent other freedoms being jeopardised.

Sedition is prohibited by Section 124A of the IPC. Governments crave self-preservation. Infringement of freedom is important.


It's not unheard of to hold local council elections, Scottish parliament elections and Welsh assembly elections at the same time, e.g. 2016 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_local_elections European elections sometimes get bundled in with those, like in 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_United_Kingdom_local_elections

Lastly, in 2015 the local elections and general election were held at the same time:

If I remember correctly it's fairly common, if not predominant, that they're combined.

You just get N ballot forms, where N is the number of things you're voting for.

Anyway, my guess is that from a technical point of view

it's absolutely possible.

It's not happened yet as there's only been one year when a general election and European elections were in the same year - 1979 (the first European elections!) - and they were in different months.

A short notice period is needed - that's been 25 working days [corrected - thanks origimbo]

since the fixed term parliament act was amended in 2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011

I doubt that it would be a single ballot.

Formally, the two elections are separate, and mixing them on the same paper compromises this.

EU citizens in the UK can vote in EU elections, but not in British national elections.

They would need separate ballots.

Which ballot goes on top?

Are the parties in the same order on both ballots?

Can a voter vote in one election and abstain in the other, or would he have to spoil the ballot on the second election?

Is it even possible to spoil one ballot on the paper and not the other, or would the entire paper be discarded?

A more practical suggestion would be to hold two separate elections sharing the same polling stations on the same day.

Go to the left, vote for the national elections, then go to the right, vote for the EU elections.

No, the elections could be held on the same day, but it would be impractical to have a single ballot paper.

The constituency boundaries are not the same, and some people are eligible to vote in European elections but not in UK elections.

There would be two ballot papers.

If the elections are held on the same day, then two different ballot papers will be used.

In London, when the Mayor and Assembly are elected at the same time, three different ballot papers are used (one for Mayor, one for Assembly Constituency Member, one for Assembly At-Large Members).

These ballot papers will be different colours to help the voters, as well as the sorters at the count.

Yes in the Netherlands we had such an election this month, however it was not on the same ballot

and I think it's unlikely somewhere in the world the same ballot will be used. Provincial Council elections and water boards On March 20, 2019, elections took place in the Netherlands.

You could choose the members of the Provincial Council.

You were also allowed to vote for the eligible members of the board of your water board.

The members of the Provincial Council then elect the members of the Senate.

That will happen in May 2019.

Final results

Immediate results will be announced immediately after the elections.

These results are only definitive if they have been approved by the Electoral Council.

The Electoral Council will announce the final results on Monday, March 25, 2019 via news items on its own website.

Question: There's talk in the news about the possibility of a General Election being called. If one is called, could the General Election and European Election be run together with a single ballot paper divided up into two sections, one to elect an MP and the other section to elect an MEP?

Running a General Election and the European Elections together

It's not unheard of to hold local council elections, Scottish parliament elections and Welsh assembly elections at the same time, as happened in 2016. European elections sometimes get included also, as was the case in 2014. It is common for elections to be combined and held on the same day, with different ballot papers being used.

It is commonplace for two elections to be run together but they would require separate ballots.


Parliament has one power.

It can pass motions.

These motions can become Acts of Parliament and define new laws.

The text of the Act of Parliament is basically unlimited.

An Act of Parliament can, in theory, consist of nothing but the word "Rhubarb" written 5000 times.

It could contain a statement that "pi = 4", or it could repeal the law of Gravity.

These are silly examples, but they show that Parliament can create any act that it chooses.

How that relates to "power" is more questionable.

Obviously, an Act that declares "pi = 4" would have no effect on the actual value of pi.

Similarly an Act that is unenforceable, will not be enforced.

Could Parliament change the electoral system to vary who gets to vote?

Yes

they have done this multiple times in the past.

The direction of history has meant that the franchise has been extended each time, to include non-property-owning men, and then to include some women.

But it is far from the case that "everybody" can vote.

Prisoners, under-18s, and The Queen, for example, have no vote in elections.

Parliament could make it impossible for women to vote, but such a law would be unenforceable.

The ultimate check on the power of any authority is the risk of violent revolution.

This restriction on the power of any government is implicit.

There's a substantial difference between the theoretical and actual limits of authority held by Parliament.

De facto

In the UK tradition Parliament's authority is theoretically absolute.

With a sufficient majority in the House of Commons any law can be passed and the authorities (police, judiciary, etc) can be directed to enforce that law.

The upper House of Lords can attempt to delay or amend those laws, but the lower house has primacy and can force them through after a certain amount of time.

De Jure

All new laws must be 'assented' to by the Monarch.

Since the Parliament are (again theoretically) subject to her failure to assent, the 'in law' position is that Parliament is not absolute since the lower House of Commons can't direct her to sign even with a majority vote.

In fact, without her specific consent to form a government and sit in session, Parliament is dissolved.

Realpolitik

In the real world, Parliament is bounded by a great number of limits; the need to secure a majority in both houses for normal legislation, the enforcability of laws that are passed, budgetary limits, EU law (for the time being), International Law, various treaties to which the UK is signatory and pressure from outside bodies with influence (such as foreign governments).

Another elephant in the room here is the European Convention on Human Rights , an international convention to which the UK is a party state.

This effectively gives a supranational body, the European Court of Human Rights the power to pass judgement that a contracting state has breached provisions in the convention concerning human civil and political rights.

The original treaty does let states leave (denounce the treaty), but only after a 5 year cooling off period.

As with all international treaties, it's not entirely clear what would happen if a state just unilaterally stopped playing ball immediately, especially if it were willing to enter a period of North Korean style isolationism, but it is another element in play, beyond the various parties (and the two houses) of Parliament watching each other.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act means they have to respond to the electorate, eventually.

In fact this provision has existed for a long time in various forms

The Septennial Act 1715 provided that a parliament expired seven years after it had been summoned; this period was reduced to five years by the Parliament Act 1911.

The House of Lords can exercise some restraint in terms constitutionality of laws, although given the lack of a single, written constitution in the UK that's a complicated exercise.

Presumably the Queen can withhold Royal Assent on some completely insane law, but there isn't much in the way recent precedent.

The last bill that was refused assent by the sovereign (on the advice of ministers) was the Scottish Militia Bill during Queen Anne's reign in 1708.

Just to add to the other answers here, in theory the monarch can veto an Act of Parliament by refusing Royal Assent .

In practice Royal Assent is a formality and the theoretical power of veto is never exercised.

The last time Royal Assent was actually withheld was in 1708 .

However if Parliament voted to do something so clearly undemocratic as arbitrarily cancelling elections or disenfranchising the majority of the population then it remains a possibility.

Also relevant is the fact that the UK monarch is the head of the armed forces .

In theory the Queen could order the army to go and arrest the Prime Minister, and it would be a legal order that they would have to obey.

(An urban legend has it that Queen Victoria withheld assent to a law outlawing lesbianism on the grounds that no woman would ever do such a thing.

This is not true.)

Question: Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?  What I mean by  absolute power  is: presumably they can make illegal or legal whatever they want. Even going so far as to disenfranchise their own electorate.  Is this correct, or are there any checks on the power of Parliament?

Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?

Parliament has one power and thus holds absolute power.


Yes.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments...

And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor , Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The Senate would be judging, so they would have to convict the president of it for there to be a punishment, as that’s how a court works.

The judgment is what determines if they would be removed and barred from running again, according to the above quote.

Constitution quote from Wikipedia

Being impeached is the equivalent of an indictment , not a conviction .

Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were formally accused of wrongdoing, but never actually convicted of anything.

The direct text from the Constitution itself: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The act of impeachment is distinct from a conviction.

There are no official consequences unless the President is convicted.

Yes.

Disqualification from holding office is a possible consequence of conviction.

Without conviction, there can be no disqualification.

For more information, see Can a US President, after impeachment and removal, be re-elected or re-appointed? at Law .

Yes.

Nothing happens directly to the president unless he is impeached and convicted.

If he is just impeached he can run for a second term and is a fully functioning president - same as if he wasn't impeached.

It depends.

According to the Washington Post , it depends on whether a vote on disqualification from holding office in the future is held: The question of whether Trump could nonetheless run for president next year is more complicated.

In the impeachment of federal officials, the Senate has adopted the practice of holding a separate vote on the issue of disqualification from future federal office after it votes for conviction.

Since at least the 1912 impeachment of Judge Robert Archbald, the Senate has required only a majority vote for disqualification.

If no disqualification vote is held, even a convicted official can reenter federal service.

U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings was removed from office in 1989 after he was impeached in the House for engaging in a “corrupt conspiracy” — soliciting a $150,000 bribe in a case before him — and convicted in the Senate.

But the Senate took no vote on disqualification.

In 1992, Hastings ran for and won a seat from Florida in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he remains to this day.

If Trump were convicted by the Senate, but the Senate chose not to hold a disqualification vote, he could in theory run again, win and return to the White House.

The path to reelection would also be open if a Senate vote favoring disqualification failed.

Note that article I, section 3, clause 7 of the constitution as quoted in

another answer does not state that an impeachment must consider disqualification from holding office, it only states it as being within the Senate's power to issue such punishment.

Politifact also considers the case of separate votes for removing from office and banning one from holding office: Could the Senate choose what punishment to apply?

Scholars suggest that the Senate has the power to support removal from office without barring them from holding office in the future.

"It is up to the Senate to make that decision," said Stephen M, Griffin, a Tulane University law professor.

There’s even a well-known example of a Phoenix-like rebirth: The Senate removed Alcee Hastings from his judgeship in 1989, but he later won election to the U.S. House, where he continues to serve.

Politifact even goes on to mention precedent for separate votes: How many votes would be needed?

What’s less clear is the process by which any of this would happen, and the extent to which past precedents would matter.

For instance, "there would be an argument over whether separate votes are required," Griffin said.

However, there is precedent for separate votes, Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina, has written.

In 1862 and 1913, the Senate took separate votes to remove and disqualify judges West Humphreys and Robert Archbald, respectively," Gerhardt wrote.

"For each judge, a supermajority first voted to convict, followed by a simple majority vote to disqualify.

The Senate defended this practice on the ground that the clause mentioning disqualification does not specify the requisite vote for its imposition."

politics.stackexchange.com/users/18862/JJ for Transparency and Monica

Question: Suppose the House impeaches Trump but the Senate does not convict him and he is not removed from office. Could this House-impeached president run for a second term?

Can a House-impeached but not Senate-convicted president run for a second term?

Yes, disqualification from holding office is a possible consequence of conviction.

Yes, although conviction may lead to disqualification.


Most places in the United States have independent government agencies that perform services for particular districts.

These agencies normally collect "property taxes".

These taxes are either proportional to the assessed value of real estate, cars, and/or personal property in the jurisdiction, and/or are a fee per housing unit or lot or square foot of particular

form(s) of real estate.

These agencies typically have elected boards.

For example: School boards Fire districts Irrigation districts Sewer commissions [Potable] water commissions Port authorities

(these often control airports, not just harbors)

Some of these districts have highly restricted legislative power.

For example, school boards oversee school curricula, constrained by state guidelines.

(But they do not control the curricula of private schools and homeschools within their boundaries.)

Some fire districts can prohibit activities or real estate development likely to cause devastating wildfires.

Irrigation districts used to impose rules for receiving water that made it hard to grow certain crops.

Sewer commissions can tax or prohibit new construction.

Some examples include the Sheriff, County Treasurer, Tax Collector/Assessor, District Attorney, District Clerk, County Attorney, County Clerk, County Commissioners and Constables.

I live in Texas and just about

everyone that falls under the state infrastructure is elected.

This includes the structure of county governments.

The current Texas Constitution was written in reaction to Reconstruction following the Civil War and reflected a great mistrust of elected officials.

Here's a list of elected officials in one county in Texas.

As a side note, lots of legislation in Texas is written in the form of Constitutional amendments that must be voted on by the people of the state.

"Coroner" is an interesting office.

In modern times, it means a government official whose office temporarily stores dead bodies and performs autopsies.

In many states of the United States, the coroner is elected at the county level.

In many counties, the position is combined with the position of sheriff.

Some websites call it a judicial office.

Wikipedia says that it historically acted as a backup to (or check upon) English county sheriffs, plus had certain responsibilities related to the estates of dead people.

Zeb Towne is the dog catcher of Duxbury, Vermont .

He was last elected in 2018, and is now appointed to the same role by the town board.

Thanks to Jasper for the correction.

"I wouldn't vote for him for Dog Catcher" is an American turn of phrase that often used to denote that someone distrusts a candidate seeking elected office, they wouldn't vote for him to run a seeemingly apolitical job of catching stray animals.

While the office of Dog Catcher is archaic (Humane Society and Animal Control are more commonly used)

it's also not uncommon for these offices to be voted on in local elections.

It should also be noted that while there are a lot of offices up for election in the United States, the office may have staffers who are hired for the job and will keep their positions even when the boss is voted out.

For example, the office of Sheriff is voted, but his deputies are career law enforcement and will remain on the job even if a Sheriff loses his race.

In the case of elected Coroners, the elected official need not actually cut open and examine the bodies, a career coroner with an MD is usually on staff.

THe elected Coroner will typically be charged with the paper work and administration of the office.

In Massachusetts, the following state officers are elected: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of the Commonwealth (often called Secretary of State), State Auditor, and Treasurer.

Cities and towns have many different elected officers.

In my town of Arlington, in addition to the executive officers (a 5-member Select Board) and legislative branch (252 Town Meeting members), we elect a Board of Assessors and School Board.

Treasurer used to be an elected position, but we voted in 2018 to make it an appointed position, beginning when the current Treasurer's term ends in 2020.

There's also an elected county Sheriff.

There are several other elected roles, depending on the specific jurisdiction within the US.

As most of them have already been added in other answers, I will add here just the officials who run the elections themselves, as those are elected positions in some jurisdictions and not on other answers' lists.

Head prosecutors (e.g. district attorney, state attorney general), auditors, and financial controllers are also often elected positions.

Some jurisdictions have also proposed and/or instituted elected positions for certain roles like review of police conduct, openness of government records, etc.

Question: This question is as put in the title.  It is general knowledge that legislators, high executive offices, and some judges are elected. But are any other elected government offices?  An example could be a position in an independent agency—part of the executive but whose officials are not constitutional officers—of the federal, or of any state or local governments, that is elected. A non-example would be the chair of a yacht club, which is elected but not part of government.

Are there any elected officials in the U.S. who are not legislators, judges, or constitutional officers?

Some examples include the Sheriff, County Treasurer, Tax Collector/Assessor, District Attorney, District Clerk, County Attorney, County Clerk, County Commissioners and Constables. In Massachusetts, the following state officers are elected: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of the Commonwealth (often called Secretary of State), State Auditor, and Treasurer.

The following fall into this category: Sheriff, County Treasurer, Tax Collector/Assessor, District Attorney, District Clerk, County Attorney, County Clerk, County Commissioners, Constables, Governors, Lieutenant Governors, Attorney Generals, Secretaries of the Commonwealth (often called Secretary of State), State Auditors and Treasurers.


Some short-term models of the economic effects of global warming do point to benefits for the Northern countries.

In the long run however, the models tend to point to "everybody loses".

But like with all long-run projections, it's harder to be certain of country-specific effects.

From https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y

Presumably yes: shift of climate should move more productive climate zones to those countries the carbon dioxide does not simply increase temperature, but instead retains heat, thus result is disproportionally strong in winters and nights (seems fine...)

Northern sea routes become viable, thus shortening the trade route between Asia and Europe one exports carbohydrates, they are being combusted, CO2 level increase, ice thaws, more more natural resources in Arctic become much easier to explore - well, cynically I'd say that in a way this business model is sustainable However: Rain is much harder to predict than temperature.

It applies both to weather reports and IPCC models.

I'm not saying that those countries would be afflicted by unfavourable change of rain patterns, I'm just saying it's a lottery.

even in the biggest approximation shift of climate zones is not so unquestionably desirable for Russia, as its southern regions (ex. Caucasus)

would actually lose their favourability

Those sparsely populated countries are not even close to utilising all arable land they have right now, so that getting more of it would not change much Infrastructure build for different conditions.

Let's say there is an inhospitable place with permafrost that each summer turns in to mud.

Warmer climate would be theoretically highly desired, just if it actually started to thaw all those buildings may sink a bit.

(which is slightly bad for a building and disaster for a railway line)

People mention global disruption, which is a bit tricky.

Sure, an economic crisis may harm seriously such countries.

Nevertheless, I'm somewhat sceptical about climate refugees.

We haven't been accepting so far people from Arab peninsula on the grounds that temperature there can exceed 50 Celsius.

Even if the climate become really nasty - Russia is not the most welcoming place for refugees, Canada would be indirectly shielded by US, while in Scandinavia it may be a serious problem, but it depends on future political climate (depends at which moment imported political instability makes local population go berserk)

This is partly why some people have switched to "climate change".

Warming sounds good, but the transition in the ecosystem can be pretty rough.

For example, much worse forest fires in Russia.

Russia also built cities and resource extraction infrastructure on permafrost.

This is now melting, causing considerable damage.

I live in Northern Canada, so I have a dog in this hunt, so to speak.

We already see effects of global warming, and while some of them are presumably more pleasant (no, we don't see as much extreme cold in the winter anymore), you might be surprised at some of the unexpected consequences.

We are seeing milder winters, but they're also much snowier and cloudier, since we no longer see the massive Arctic High Pressure systems that used to sit over us for weeks to give us cold, clear, calm (but sunny!)

winter weather.

We are seeing more invasive insects coming up from the south.

These would normally be killed off in severe winter weather but now range further than ever before.

A pine beetle infestation killed thousands of hectares of trees not far from where I live.

Those dead trees now pose a massive fire hazard.

You'd think that warmer weather would open up agricultural opportunities, too, but in Canada that is limited; much of the area that's warming the most sits in the Canadian Shield, an area of solid rock that comprises most of the country.

The lack of arable soil is a much greater challenge to overcome than just the temperature itself.

I believe much of Siberia faces that same issue.

Even on top of that, the towns in the far north are all built on permafrost, and as we lose that the towns are slowly sinking into the ground.

The airport in Inuvik, Northwest Territories recently had to spend CDN$22 million to replace a runway that had become unusable because parts of it had sunk due to melting permafrost.

That's a dramatic example but many towns are facing similar issues.

Russia and Canada do support global warming, as shown in Crude Oil Production - Countries - List At 10 million barrels per day, Russia is second only to the US (12 million) in terms of daily extraction of crude oil.

Canada is in 5th place with 4 million barrels per day.

Most of that oil is used as fuel, generating atmospheric CO₂.

According to World Beef Production: Ranking Of Countries - Beef2Live | Eat Beef * Live Better , Russia and Canada

are only 11 th and 12 th in beef cattle, well behind the US, which produces 5 times as much as the other two countries combined.

Obviously these two countries need to improve their methane gas emissions.

Question: Shouldn't these countries benefit from it? Shouldn't they want heat to melt the ice?

Shouldn't countries like Russia and Canada support global warming?

A shift in climate should move more productive climate zones to those countries. The carbon dioxide does not simply increase temperature, but instead retains heat, thus the result is disproportionally strong in winters and at night.

These countries should wish to support and benefit from global warming.


No. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261

The notion of unlawful here means only that the prorogation does not comply with how the supreme court interprets the political rule book.

It doesn't actually mean any actual law was broken, or anything criminal occurred.

It is no different than saying, a law is unconstitutional.

legislators who draft laws deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court (which happens all the time) never face criminal charges.

Because unconstitutional there only means it doesn't follow how the court interprets the constitution.

IANAL, but probably the only thing he could be charged with is misconduct in public office .

I haven't seen anyone suggest that he should be charged (for this, this time).

The charge does not require one to break some explicit statute.

It also applies "where there is no relevant statutory offence, but the behaviour or the circumstances are such that they should nevertheless be treated as criminal".

The criteria are: a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification.

However, last time Johnson was charged with this offence, by a private prosecutor, and for some political statements, it failed fairly quickly, when the granting of summons was appealed to the High Court.

Of course, the circumstances this time involve more than a statement, but insofar I haven't seen suggestions that he should be charged.

I don't know if the following argument meets all the legal criteria to be a good defence, but conceptually at least, the fact that the High Court of England ruled in favor of Johnson's government, could be used as an argument that "hey, it wasn't obviously unlawful before the Supreme Court decided so", i.e. this could be a valid excuse under bullet #4 from the criteria above.

While this is a small difference, the supreme court found that the prorogation was unlawful rather than illegal.

This may seem pedantic, but the law is often so.

Boris will not be charged with a crime, because there is no crime to charge him with.

It is possible that he will break a law over this, but until he has done so it is impossible for charges to be brought.

Highly unlikely Most high courts (regardless of country) prefer to keep themselves out of the political process.

When cases like this come up, they want to tailor things as narrowly as possible as to the question before them.

In this case, the UK Supreme Court said this (trimmed for relevance) The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.

For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive.

In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.

If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech.

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court.

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect.

This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed.

This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper.

The prorogation was also void and of no effect.

Parliament has not been prorogued.

This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices The question here was one of procedure.

Trying to make this criminal would create all sorts of chaos.

What laws would he be guilty of breaking?

What sentence should be carried out?

Could the Supreme Court have all of Parliament arrested for violating parliamentary procedures TL;DR

The High Court nullified the order to prorogue.

It did not accuse Mr. Johnson of having committed a crime , only having broken the procedures of Parliament .

At this point the court has not ruled that what he did was illegal, only that it did not comply with the laws of the land and thus should be voided.

If he tries to prorogue again or refuses to follow the law created by the Ben Act (to request an extension from the EU)

he could be ordered by the court to do so and then held in contempt of court if he didn't.

Question: Since the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the proroguing of the UK Parliament was illegal, is Boris Johnson personally culpable? Does this depend on whether the UK Parliament and its democratic representatives reconvene themselves? If it is reliant on their reconvening, does the criminality or non-criminality of Boris Johnson or other related parties depend on who took what action, and when and why? Details very useful here.

Could Boris Johnson face criminal charges for illegally proroguing Parliament?

politics.stackexchange.com/users/8018/What's in a Google Search

This does not mean that an actual law was broken, or that anything criminal occurred. Therefore, Johnson will not be charged with a crime.

Boris will not be charged because no law was broken.


I think the only sensible answer is "yes": he both denies that he did those actions and denies that they are illegal.

At least from my reading of the news, he seems to be doing both at different times, depending on his audience and whims of the moment.

Given the quick release of the transcript of the phone call, it seems the official White House position is that the call happened as per the released transcript (Which the Ukrainian President has gone on the record as saying that he did not think anything was significantly altered on the released document) and the whistle blower's knowledge of the call and topics does line up.

The disagreement is that the President's reason to withhold aid money was out of concern was with American involvement in Ukrainian Corruption, largely with respect to the 2016 election meddling by foreign governments and that the Bidens' connections to the Ukrainian Corruption.

So the actions described by the whistle blower happened, but they were not illegal as they were not motivated out of leveraging the Ukrainian government to dig dirt up on a political opponent, but in ensuring Ukrainian assistance in determining if any U.S. citizens were engaged in corrupt acts in the Ukrainian government, and that being a political opponant of the president does not grant you immunity from being investigated for a Federal Crime.

Please note that this is generalization of multiple different individuals working in the White House and for the President, and not the President himself specifically.

The President is reliable capable of making poorly worded statements that are limited to 140 characters at a time and can often be read with one of two meanings and often during moments of frustration.

To attempt to keep it neutral (and cause I don't want to go through mountains of tweets) I will not discuss specific statements from Trump or the inevitable contradictory statements that later surfaced.

Trump uses the term "witch hunt" as a rhetorical device to refer to any investigations of him or the people around him.

According to a Vox.com article : Since assuming office, Trump has tweeted some variant of the phrase “WITCH HUNT!”

more than 120 times in response to the Mueller investigation and critics including the “Fake News,” congressional Democrats, Hillary Clinton, various intelligence agencies, former President Obama, and “leakers” within the administration itself.

This was written a year ago, before the Mueller report was released or the current impeachment investigation.

I wouldn't be surprised if his uses have more than doubled since then.

The article goes on to say These tweets reflect the modern usage of the term — as a metaphor that delegitimizes an investigation by calling out the partisan biases and ideological motives underlying accusations of wrongdoing.

Trump's actual claims about what he's being accused of are very inconsistent.

Sometimes he'll say that he didn't do it, other times he'll say that it isn't illegal or wrong.

One of his spokesmen said about the Ukraine issue that it's done all the time in politics.

And sometimes he just flat-out lies, like saying that the Mueller Report totally exonerated him.

The term "witch hunt" for political investigations entered the lexicon in reference to the McCarthy anti-communist hearings.

Trump is trying to equate the narrow investigations into his activities to the sweeping accusations against thousands of government employees and public figures with liberal viewpoints.

Trump doesn't have a "position" on these allegations as such.

He is applying advice he received many years ago: Never give up Never admit a mistake or a wrongdoing Don't apologize (equates to an admission)

Always fight back The whistleblower has alleged a serious wrongdoing by the president.

Trump is applying the above advice by: Not admitting the wrongdoing, and Fighting back ("counterpunching")

He is responding to the allegations by alternately: Assaulting the character and integrity of his accusers (fighting back)

- asserting partisan political motives and/or a personal attack on him.

Denying that he did what has been claimed

(one might infer that he recognizes that the claimed act was wrongful, so he denies having done it).

Claiming that the act was not wrongful (one might infer that he admits to having done the alleged act, but asserts there was nothing wrongful about it).

As new information rises to the surface, his messaging to his base shifts focus to address it in an attempt to get out in front of the story.

The White House formulates or reformulates its official position accordingly.

His "go-to" claim of a "witch hunt" is a claim that his political opponents have fabricated a case as a personal attack against him.

It implies a lack of any substantive evidence, a partisan political motive, and that he, personally, is being made a victim.

The point of the impeachment proceedings is to expose the truth and, if the evidence leads there, right a wrong.

Usually (which is to say often but not always and certainly not without exception) when Trump talks about "the witch hunt", he is referring to the actions of the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

This link gives a cursory view of such statements.

So the way to understand this ad is to view it as the President's interpretation of how the House Democrats are treating this witness' testimony rather than as a statement about the content of the testimony itself.

Question: Last night, on a major US TV network there was a Trump ad about the "Witch Hunt" and ongoing impeachment proceedings.  It was unclear from the ad, if Trump's position is that he didn't take the actions reported by the whistle blower, or if he did but those actions were not illegal.   Can anyone clarify, the official Trump position on this?

What is Trump's position on the whistle blower allegations? What does he mean by "witch hunt"?

Trump does not have a "position" on these allegations. However, sometimes he says that he didn't do it, other times says that it isn't illegal or wrong, and uses the term "witch hunt" as a rhetorical device to refer to any investigations of him or the people around him. He is applying advice he received many years ago:  Never give up;  Never admit a mistake or a wrongdoing;  Don't apologize (equates to an admission).

Trump doesn’t have a position on these allegations and he uses the term "witch hunt" to refer to the investigations of him or the people around him.

Trump doesn’t have a position on these allegations. He is using the term "witch hunt" to refer to the investigations of him or the people around him.


Indeed, there are other countries with ritualized pledges to flag and country: Pledge of Allegiance to the Phillipine Flag Pledge of Allegiance to the

(South) Korean Flag

Some other countries also have ritualized pledges expressing love of country and ideals, without specific reference to flags or symbolism: Rukun Negara, the Pledge to Malaysia National Pledge of India Singapore National Pledge Student Oath in Turkey

I think many other countries have an equivalent, but only for people acquiring that nationality by choice.

In my country, for example, we have an Oath of Fidelity to the Nation, used at the ceremony for new citizens and compatriots: I (name) having applied to the Minister for Justice and Equality for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.

I undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect its democratic values.

Source

I think people born in a country would have no need to pledge or re-pledge allegiance to what is already their native country.

I'm not sure why you would want to do this unless there is some doubt about people's allegiances, which is clearly important in places with conflicting social or political backgrounds.

Answering for Kenya, we do have a loyalty pledge , though it is extremely rare to hear it being recited even in national holidays like independence day.

We used to recite it while in primary school just after singing the national anthem.

However, it has come to fade and does not receive much attention.

In fact, if you were to ask an 18 year old to recite it they would probably be like '

we have such a thing?' .

This is because it was used during the reign of the second president (Daniel Arap Moi, 1978-2002) as a means to instill patriotism especially in kids.

It was a time when the political environment was quite stiff.

This blog indicates a shared opinion of what it was really about.

It was mandatory to recite it then, unlike now, where only the national anthem is sung.

So to answer your question, yes for Kenya, but more of a historical thing.

EDIT

Since the link to the blog was pulled down, the summarized opinion is that reciting the pledge always felt more of influenced by the law and the stiff government of the time, than one's patriotic conviction.

In the United Kingdom , persons who become naturalised citizens swear allegiance to the monarch and their lawful heirs and successors.

Non-religious people may affirm instead of swearing an oath.

Judges, military personnel, public notaries, and clergy of the Church of England, do likewise on taking office or being admitted to their respective status.

Holders of various important offices take the oath as soon as possible after assuming office, and members of either house of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly must do so before they can take their seats.

Some people, including police officers in England and Wales, and members of the Privy Council who have a more elaborate oath, swear only to the current monarch.

Presumably they are re-sworn when there is a new monarch.

Native-born citizens who don't become any of the kinds of public servant listed above normally go through their entire lives without taking any oath of allegiance, as I have.

The idea of schoolchildren taking it at frequent intervals is one of the things that seem very strange about the USA to the British.

For Jamaica, we do have a national pledge said almost always said before or

after the national anthem you stand at attention (it used to be right hand over left breast) and say: Before God and all mankind, I pledge the love and loyalty of my heart, the wisdom and courage of my mind, the strength and vigour of my body in the service of my fellow citizens; I promise to stand up for Justice, Brotherhood and Peace, to work diligently and creatively, to think generously and honestly, so that Jamaica may, under God, increase in beauty, fellowship and prosperity, and play her part in advancing the welfare of the whole human race.

It's normally said in schools along with the national anthem and at many major occasions.

It's important.

It doesn't matter whether you're an immigrant or born Jamaican.

Everyone has to say it or at least stand at attention just like the anthem.

Question: As far as I understand it, the pledge of allegiance is an oath or expression of allegiance to the United States, and is made by students in many (most?) schools throughout the USA, as well as at the start of Congressional sessions.  Do any other countries have such an exercise? If not a pledge to their flag and republic, to something else, like a monarch or their parliament?

Do any other countries aside from the US have a pledge of allegiance?

Some other countries also have ritualized pledges expressing love of country and ideals, without specific reference to flags or symbolism:   Rukun Negara, the Pledge to Malaysia,  National Pledge of India,  Singapore National Pledge, or the  Student Oath in Turkey. Many other countries have an equivalent, but only for people acquiring that nationality by choice.  In the  United Kingdom , persons who become naturalised citizens swear allegiance to the monarch and their lawful heirs and successors.

Other countries such as Malaysia, Turkey and Kenya do have ritualised and/or loyalty pledges. Furthermore, in the United Kingdom, allegiance is sworn to the monarch by those who become natural citizens.

Other countries such as Malaysia, Turkey and Kenya do have ritualised and/or loyalty pledges. In the United Kingdom, allegiance is sworn to the monarch by those who become natural citizens.


FiveThirtyEight currently gives him a 3% chance of winning a majority of delegates (about as likely as Elizabeth Warren), and an 8% chance of winning a plurality (about as likely as Pete Buttigieg)

so he seems to have at least some chance of becoming the nominee.

His most plausible route to victory is managing to rally a group of delegates for other centrist candidates behind him (with some potential help from superdelegates) in a contested (or brokered) convention.

Since he entered the race at a significantly later date than many other candidates, he chose to skip some early states where he felt he stood very little chance and instead focus on later states with a more delegates.

His campaign is aimed at gaining momentum from a strong result on "Super Tuesday".

He has been ineligible to participate in any of the debates so far, as he has met neither the polling requirements, nor the requirements to have donations from a given number of individuals.

The latter requirement has been dropped recently, most likely because it would have prevented him from ever participating (his campaign is entirely self-funded).

He has made up for this by spending significantly more than any other candidate on TV advertising.

(It should be noted that due to his unconventional strategy, modelling his chances has an additional degree of uncertainty associated with it.

It should also be noted that these figures will be changing regularly, so you should check the link for up to date projections.)

Only two states have had voted (/whatever

you want to call what happened in Iowa) so far.

Bloomberg was not on those ballots because he did not file.

According to wiki he announced on November 24, 2019.

The filing deadline for some early states had passed- for example New Hampshire was November 12.

Bloomberg did start some filings before he announced, to get on in Alabama, Michigan, and Arkansas for example.

The big delegate haul is "Super Tuesday" March 3 (corrected).

He is on those ballots and has been in California for example campaigning.

It's a risk.

The early states have few delegates but set the tone and momentum.

On the other hand, he does not have to worry about donors abandoning him for a poor/

no showing-

he has one donor (himself).

Momentum is another story.

But hes getting mentioned in the press due to the anticipation.

IMO, Bloomberg will be helped by the apparent demise of Biden in the early states.

Voters and kingmakers looking for an old moderate white guy can slide on over.

We'll see.

For historical reference, other candidates have tried a strategy and failed.

Al Gore (D) in 1988 focused on the southern states of Super Tuesday (he's from Tennessee).

Rudy Giuliani (R) in 2008 campaigned in New Hampshire but was counting on Florida and then New York

and it's neighbors Connecticut and New Jersey to propel him.

Neither was the nominee.

Probably the most realistic chance (or more reasonably, least unrealistic) is for the "powers that be" in the DNC to manipulate the convention.

Suppose that there is a strong current of dislike for the front-runner at the convention.

For example, maybe it's Sanders, and people think he's too socialist to win.

They may think that their best shot at defeating Trump is somebody more "establishment.

" This had previously been Biden, but Biden is doing less than stellar.

So the power-brokers might "flex" and pull some dirty tricks.

And Bloomberg might wind up pushed forward.

Whether such a thing would be acceptable and workable would depend on such things as what pressure they could place on the front runner.

For example, Sanders eventually endorsed Clinton.

If they could induce him to do the same for Bloomberg, it might be possible.

It would burn a lot of political capital.

Many people would be very upset over it, just as they were in the case of Sanders vs. Clinton.

But the power-brokers might think it worth it to try to unseat Trump.

Iowa and New Hampshire are first, but they're also relatively tiny.

According to Wikipedia , there are 3,979 pledged delegates and 771 superdelegates in the Democratic primary.

So far, only Iowa and New Hampshire have voted.

Iowa has 41 (normal, elected) delegates and New Hampshire has 24.

So, around 1.3% of delegates have been decided so far.

Bloomberg presumably decided to let the other candidates spend their money on IA and NH for their relatively small number of delegates and instead focus his campaign on the states that vote on ' Super Tuesday ,' (i.e. March 3.)

While the votes so far were for 65 delegates, the votes on Super Tuesday are for 1,319 delegates, almost 28% of all of the delegates.

A strong performance on Super Tuesday could mean far more for Bloomberg's campaign than one in Iowa or New Hampshire would have.

Given his wealth, notoriety, and political connections, Bloomberg could also end up with a decent amount of support from the Democratic Party's ' superdelegates ,' who are party power brokers who can vote in the convention for whoever they want regardless of primary and caucus votes.

These represent a bit over 16% of the overall delegates, so a strong showing from the superdelegates could also sway the convention significantly toward Bloomberg.

Another strike against the super-early states is that their nominations are notoriously wrong Since the caucuses began in 1972, there have been 18 caucus winners between the two parties: 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans.

More than half of those winners went on to secure their party's nomination in that cycle, but only three would go on to be elected president.

After Iowa and New Hampshire, Pete Buttigieg is leading the delegate count at 23, with 1991 needed to win the nomination.

Super Tuesday (which is what Bloomberg is blitzing with media buys) has 1,357 delegates at stake.

Five Thirty Eight currently gives Bloomberg an 8% chance of winning , while Buttigieg (who technically won Iowa in delegates) is at 4%.

Real Clear Politics poll average shows Bloomberg at 14.2% and Buttigieg at 10.6%

Question: I just saw an advertisement on TV: "Bloomberg for president!", but I am not seeing him in any of the primary results.    How can he have any realistic chance of being the Democratic nominee if he's not on the ballot in any of the primaries so far?

How can Michael Bloomberg become the Democratic nominee for President when he has not appeared on any primary ballot so far?

Probably the most realistic chance is for the "powers that be" in the DNC to manipulate the convention.  Given his wealth, notoriety, and political connections, Bloomberg could also end up with a decent amount of support from the Democratic Party's 'superdelegates', who are party power brokers who can vote in the convention for whoever they want regardless of primary and caucus votes.

He can have a realistic chance if manipulation by the "powers that be" is involved and/or if the democratic parties who are power party brokers vote for him regardless of primary or caucus votes.

He can have a realistic chance if manipulation by the "powers that be" is involved. The democratic parties who are power party brokers may also vote for him regardless of primary or caucus votes.


The simple answer is there was more competition.

In 2016, it was mostly Sanders vs Clinton for the Democratic Primary.

She had several potential scandals brewing (her private email server, questions about the Clinton Global Initiative, etc) and Sanders was the only outlet for people who did not want to see Clinton win.

Sanders had plenty of healthy competition this time Elizabeth Warren - She overlapped Sanders on a number of issues , and may have been a spoiler for him

Liberal candidates, such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, have embraced ambitious spending programmes to provide universal health care, increase access to higher education and deal with America’s worsening housing crisis.

Joe Biden - The former Obama VP, he has been the "please not Bernie" moderate option If Sanders were to win the nomination, his proud connection to socialism and his 50-year record of extremism would be enough to doom his chances.

Add to that his unpopular campaign proposals to double the size of the government, sharply raise middle-class taxes, and take private health insurance from 180 million Americans, and you hand the GOP a deadly arsenal of material to use against both Sanders and other Democrats on the ballot.

But the political winds may have shifted.

On Saturday, roughly half of South Carolina Democrats voted for Biden, with Sanders almost 30 points behind.

That matters, because it will dampen Sanders’ momentum heading into the massive Super Tuesday primary.

And it might get voters in those states to do what the moderate candidates refuse to do:

settle on one to carry the banner forward.

Michael Bloomberg - Probably more of a spoiler to Biden than Sanders, he, too, was an "anyone but Bernie" candidate who spent over $500M in Super Tuesday Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg's more than $550 million in campaign advertising and exclusive focus on Super Tuesday states were supposed to give him a big night Tuesday night, making him the default candidate for establishment Democrats to rally around to stop Bernie Sanders.

Instead, he had just 44 delegates as of Wednesday morning, landing him in a very distant fourth place.

It likely has something to do with who he was running against in 2016.

It's hard to make a "head-to-head" comparison when the opposition was different.

There are more candidates at this point in the race, so votes are going to be more split.

Expecting % differences to remain constant doesn't make much sense when at least 4 candidates got non-negligible support in most places.

In Minnesota, an endorsement of one of Sanders' opponents by a popular senator and former presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar, as well as strong state support for another progressive candidate Elizabeth Warren, both likely hurt Sanders.

Additionally, primary elections are highly dependent on voter turnout.

Voter turnout was low among younger voters, and excitement for Sanders might have been dampened in places like Vermont where he was expected to win easily - his supporters there may not have felt as compelled to vote there as in the previous cycle.

FiveThirtyEight has some thoughts overall on the trends on Super Tuesday including the direction that late deciders went.

Context for Minnesota's results Minnesota switched from a caucus in 2016 to a primary in 2020.

Turnout increased from 200,000 votes to more than 700,000 , so we can't say that Sanders lost his base of support from 2016 into 2020 (in fact, he got almost twice as many votes in 2020).

One theory is that Sanders has a "more enthusiastic" base, and caucuses draw the most enthusiastic voters because of the time burden a caucus requires.

Relieving this burden and increasing voter turnout is likely to blunt Sanders' advantage.

Also, 8% of Minnesotan ballots in 2020 went to candidates who had left the race as of election day, mainly because of mail-in voting.

Another 13% went to the 3rd and 4th placing candidates, because in 2020 there were two more major candidates (with >1%) than in 2016.

This complicates a comparison to the two-candidate race in 2016.

And as others have made clear, Sanders' main "moderate" opponent is different in 2020.

Clinton's net favorability among Democrats in April 2016 was +36% ; Biden's net favorability among Democrats in February of 2020 was +49% .

While it would take either mass mind-reading or polls asking the right questions (which I can't find) to produce a definitive answer, I would theorize that it is simple practicality on the part of voters.

Their primary (no pun intended) objective is to win the November election.

Going by current odds (e.g. https://www.actionnetwork.com/politics/2020-presidential-election-odds-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-joe-biden ) Sanders has less than a 10% chance of beating Trump, while Biden is nearly even.

Realistically, any candidate who hopes to win the general election has to attract votes from the ~40% or so of independent voters.

Sanders describes himself (and is described by many others) as a socialist.

Socialism is viewed unfavorably by independent voters, and especially so by older voters, who are more likely to actually vote: https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/807047941/poll-sanders-rises-but-socialism-isnt-popular-with-most-americans

So even if a large fraction of Democrats who vote in the primaries actually like Sanders better than the other candidates, many dislike the prospect of four more years of Trump - particularly a Trump winning by a large margin - even more.

So they vote for the candidate they view as most electable instead of the one they like best.

In 2016 this wasn't as great a factor, as few people expected that Trump would actually win the nomination.

Question: In Oklahoma, for example, the  results of the 2016 primary  gave Sanders a 10% lead over Clinton, while in Minnesota, the  gap was even larger  at 23%. In his home state of Vermont, Sanders  won  by over 70%.  This election cycle, however, Sanders has only just scraped a majority of the votes in Vermont, while outright losing Oklahoma & Minnesota by 13% and 9% respectively. ( source )  Can this disparity be explained using polling data or other analysis?

Why are states easily won by Bernie Sanders in 2016 not supporting him in 2020?

The simple answer is there was more competition. It's hard to make a "head-to-head" comparison when the opposition was different. Expecting % differences to remain constant doesn't make much sense when at least 4 candidates got non-negligible support in most places. Turnout increased from  200,000 votes  to  more than 700,000 , so we can't say that Sanders lost his base of support from 2016 into 2020. In 2016 this was not such a factor, as few people expected that Trump would actually win the nomination.

The following reasons might explain his losses: In 2016 there was more competition and Trump was expected to win so fewer of his supporters turned up to vote and wins ultimately come down to voter practicality. However, turnout did increase in 2020 so Sanders got twice as many votes but when competition is different it is hard to make a head-to-head comparison. Finally, endorsement of one of Sanders’ opponents in Minnesota and low voter turnout among the young contributed to these losses — expectation around him winning may also have led to his supporters not voting.

In 2016 there was more competition and Trump was expected to win. It comes doesn’t to voter practicality. Turnout increased so Sanders got twice as many votes in 2020 but when competition is different it is hard to make a head-to-head comparison. Endorsement of one of Sanders’ opponents in Minnesota and low voter turnout among the young contributed to these losses — expectation around him winning may have led to his supporters not voting.


To pass, a bill needs to pass in the House and Senate and be signed by the President.

Since the last election, Democrats took control of the House, so while the Obamacare repeal bills that failed in the Senate in 2017 might pass the Senate today, there's no way they would make it through the Democrat controlled House.

With Democrat control of the House such a bill would have no chance of becoming law.

Yehuda points out that bills are sometimes introduced for show, even if they have no chance of becoming law, to demonstrate a party's commitment to making something happen, or so that opponents are forced to vote for or against something that can be used against them later.

Why are they not doing this?

The main reason is that the promise to the electorate made by President Trump was to "repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better".

The bill that failed in the Senate did repeal Obamacare, but did not replace it with anything (better or not).

That was one main reason it failed.

There was no replacement because Republicans could not agree on what a 'better" replacement would look like.

Many thought that there should be no replacement, but this would deprive many potential Republican voters of affordable healthcare, and remove popular reforms such as being able to get insurance for pre-existing conditions.

Democrats are widely associated with the ACA, and so are unlikely to suffer by being forced to vote to keep it.

The likely effect of such a vote (even if not passed) would be to expose divisions in the Republican party over what healthcare should look like, to give opponents ammunition as Republicans voted to remove popular policies, and to draw attention to the fact that Republicans, while promising to "replace Obamacare with something better" are actually voting to simply remove it.

There are aspects of this bill that modify and restrict tax credits.

If I'm not mistaken, this would make it subject to the Origination Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 7(1)):

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

A less informed, and more cynical answer than the previous posts: The republicans have no real plan, they are just against anything a democrat is for, and at this point have painted themselves into a corner by promising a narrow set of their base that they will repeal and replace a popular program.

They also know that actively appearing to work against healthcare during a healthcare crisis would make them look even worse to most people.

As other answers have noted, any repeal of the ACA is strongly opposed by the Democrats, who control the House, so such a bill has no chance of passing.

Of course, that has not stopped the Republicans from introducing and passing bills through the Senate that they know will be DOA in the House before now, in order to make a statement.

But right now, the world and especially the USA is in the grip of a pandemic.

Introducing a bill that strips people of healthcare in the middle of such a pandemic would be incredibly tone-deaf and psychopathic, even for Republicans.

Hence they won't do such a thing.

Loss of Political Will As many other answers have noted the loss of the House in 2018 made passing the legislation to repeal or even repeal/replace Obamacare in part or whole nearly an impossibility.

Any effort to do so would be DOA in the House.

That said there is perhaps another reason it has taken a backseat.

As described in this NBC News article just prior to the 2018 election many voters were concerned with Healthcare, citing it as their highest priority issue.

At the time many Republican representatives in tough races began to move away from hard-line repeal, even if they had previously run on the issue.

This is because the electorate soured on that as a solution, particularly when it came to the removal of Preexisting Condition clauses.

This article notes that the initial polling on the issue held true though the exit polls and this article further expands on that.

Given that Republicans will be looking to beat back a push to regain the Senate, Mitch McConnell seemingly has learned the lesson described in this article from fivethirtyeight where he will not push legislation in which he has little to gain and much to lose.

They have instead focused on judicial appointments, also a keystone of the Republican strategy and one that they have full control over.

While previous answers have correctly pointed out that such a bill would never pass the House, it worth noting that a better line of attack on the ACA by the GOP would be for the law to be ruled unconstitutional.

This would require anyone trying to reintroduce a healthcare bill to restart most of the work from scratch.

The ACA bill has already been stripped from the penalty of the individual mandate.

This may render all of the ACA unconstitutional.

In fact, as of late June 2020, that is the official line of the DOJ.

The case is scheduled to be heard in March 2021 by the Supreme Court of the United States .

Question: Republicans have been touting to "repeal and replace  Obamacare " ever since Obamacare was first passed under the Obama administration. In 2017 the republicans put out their healthcare bill on the Senate floor which was rejected due to the votes of Arizona's  John McCain , Alaska's  Lisa Murkowski , and Maine's  Susan Collins .  Now that Mr.McCain has passed away and has been replaced with Martha McSally to serve the remainder of his term and who would support such legislation, why don't Republicans just reintroduce their healthcare legislation?

Why doesn’t the Republican majority in the United States Senate reintroduce their heathcare legislation?

To pass, a bill needs to pass in the House and Senate and be signed by the President. However, since the last election, Democrats took control of the House, so while the Obamacare repeal bills that failed in the Senate in 2017  might  pass the Senate today, they would not make it through the Democrat controlled House.

The healthcare legislation cannot be reintroduced by the Republican majority since a bill needs to go through various channels before it is signed and Democratic control of the House means there is no chance it will become law.


The problem with boxing gloves is that they get moist inside, and don't always get a chance to dry.

What you can do is to crumple a few pages from your local newspaper and stuff that into it.

That will absorb the sweat, and they won't get moldy.

I've also heard of people putting them in the freezer or out in the sun, but I'm not sure if any of these are good options.

It seems most logical to me to make sure they dry up properly.

As for wrist wraps, simply unroll them and hang them over something, and toss them in the washing machine once in a while.

Fortunately, wrist wraps are inexpensive, and can easily be replaced when they're done for.

For my large MMA/Boxing gloves: Spray Lysol on the inside Wipe it down with a dry paper towel With a damp paper towel wipe down the inside With all straps/Velcro open let try and air out in a well ventilated area I normal wrap my hands in the paper towels to clean out the inside of the glove.

For wrist straps I always let them hang dry in a well ventilated area.

Using the Lysol has kept my new gloves from developing the smell that my old ones eventually got, even though I let them ventilate and dry every time.

I wash my handwraps every other class.

They don't take up much space in the wash machine

so it's no trouble at all.

I would recommend getting one of those lingerie/delicates laundry bags to put them in, or they turn into a tangled disaster.

as for the gloves like everyone else says, dry them out/ sanitize them after class.

and don't store them in a bag.

i hang mine on the outside of my gear bag

, keeps them and my bag from getting smelly.

my coach has these freshner things that are a mesh bag full of volcano pebbles.

they supposedly absorb the moisture from the gloves.

and then every few months you put them out in the sun for a day

and they are good to go again.

one last trick is to put a dryer sheet in each glove.

they smell fantastic!

I try to wash my hand-wraps between uses, and if I can't, I at least hang-dry them.

They get smelly and gross fast.

My gloves, I try to take out of my bag between uses.

I also have some cardboard tubes with holes punched in the sides that I jam in there to get some air flow and dryness action on the inside.

I have not tried these methods for more than a couple months at a time; so I don't know if they'll work for heavy usage over the long term.

I'll list a couple of methods which i have tested and works for me.

Wrap

you gloves in a plastic bag and freeze them.

By freezing it you kill most of the bacteria / fungus in it.

I use this method when i am away from home.

Put baking soda after use to kill fungus.

This will eliminate bad odor from cropping out.

Ur a dryer to gently dry gloves using an indoor dryer or hair dryer.

I've sun dried my gloves before and the outer layer started to peel soon after.

Wraps.

I usually toss the wraps in the washing machine and fan dry them.

Hope it helps..

Put some an open container of baking soda in your gloves.

Don't spill it everywhere.

The baking soda will absorb the funky smell of work.

Question: After heavy usage, boxing gloves and wrist wraps can get build up mildew and other nasties. What should I do the keep my gloves and wraps in good shape?

Proper way to take care of boxing gloves and wrist wraps after use?

For my large MMA/Boxing gloves:   Spray Lysol on the inside.  Wipe it down with a dry paper towel. With a damp paper towel, wipe down the inside.  With all straps/Velcro open, let them air out in a well ventilated area.   I normally wrap my hands in the paper towels to clean out the inside of the glove. For wrist straps I always let them hang dry in a well ventilated area. I try to wash my hand-wraps between uses, and if I can't, I at least hang-dry them.  Or, put baking soda after use to kill fungus.

Hand-wraps can be washed or hang-dried between uses or after every other class. Moreover, Lysol or baking soda can be used in the gloves and it is recommended they are taken out of the bag between uses.

Hand-wraps can be washed or hang-dried between uses or after every other class. Lysol can be sprayed in the gloves and it is recommended they are taken out of the bag between uses. Baking soda works well in the gloves.


You should actually be able to land quite on balance in this stance: get your instructor to check how you're placing your feet.

Make sure your knees are bent and you're dropping your weight low, but without bending your knees so low that you lose strength in the stance.

I would defer to someone more experienced than me, but I think of the main advantage of the stance is it lets you deliver power forward from the jump while enabling you to become immediately grounded and mobile.

From the x-stop, you can drop back into a sparring stance, or easily turn in either direction, or even rotate through 180 to defend against an attacker behind you.

In the palgwe form I linked in an earlier comment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNkeTjs833I

I think the point is that the supported-uppercut finishes an opponent, and the student is then ready to answer an attack from any direction: in the form, it comes from the right.

Looking at this motion, I see a few potential interpretations of this motion.

The back foot can act as kind of a foot check while jumping forward

The crossed position has an inherent coiling that can help with turning.

Though it's not common in Tae Kwon Do, I see how this position can transition to a scissor style take down used in silat and other styles.

There are a couple of benefits of the x-stance (or x-stop as you call it).

Reach.

If you are in a middle or front stance and you simply slide forward, your body weight and torso are centered between your feet (Mostly, there is some percentage difference in weight distribution, but for the purposes of this they are equal).

Now, your torso is 6" to 1' or more behind the front foot of your stance.

Slide your rear foot up into the X stance, and you gain that foot or so of reach.

Follow up strike.

You are pre-tensioning the lateral muscles of your leg for a follow up side kick with your front leg.

Because of the angle, your body already wants to release tension and move the front leg forward, so this gives a bit more speed and power to the kick.

(And, as mentioned above, you are already much closer and not having to move stances to perform the kick.)

Now admittedly, the techniques will be slightly weaker because you aren't coming from a solidly grounded stance, but the reach may or may not make the x stance worth consideration in a particular situation.

Yul-Gok Pattern

The X-stance being described is move #36 on this page.

A lot of times in application analysis, we need to look at the previous move and the next move to grasp the context of the application.

The X stance/backfist could be read as a setup for a hip throw (yes, TKD has throws), while the turn to the supported block (move #37) could be read as the throw itself.

For those unfamiliar with the form, this is a turn from the X-stance at 12 o'clock to a front stance at 9 o'clock.

Essentially, you are grabbing the opponent's gi (or dobak), and turning your body 270 degrees to throw him on the ground behind you.

In any kind of application analysis, there are multiple analyses to any one movement, and many of them are correct.

One movement can have several meanings.

In karate we call that juji-dachi (crossed stance).

It is used extensively throughout this kata ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHtm-eJYcg8 ), where it is either the ending or the beginning boundary for a technique.

Note:

You don't stand in the stance and throw techniques, you throw techniques either starting or finishing in the stance.

The stance is what happens between techniques.

In the first usage, dropping into the stance allows 180 degrees of movement from the hips and upper body, generating a large amount of force in the elbow strike.

It also sets you up for the whiplash strike and block combination that immediately follows.

It is used again almost immediately as the practitioner drops into it to gain distance from the next attacker while receiving an attack, then gets the 180 degrees of hip rotation to generate a powerful punch.

It's next use is almost invisible, but is mirrored in almost every form in any style.

When turning in a form, in any style, you pass through the stance at least briefly.

This is the source of the power for those impressively powerful blocks in beginner forms.

At about the midpoint in the form, there is an application similar to the one demonstrated in @Rophuine 's comment above.

The practitioner moves aggressively sideways into a block or strike, with the intent of immediately exploding in the opposite direction.

Towards the end, the practitioner drops into this stance to perform a jamming technique.

The bunkai (analysis) is that it's a stable base that can be dropped into when the intended punch was interrupted by the opponent charging, to execute a jam and set up for the much stronger followup attack.

That is a reinforced-backfist with the left foot crossed behind the right.

Aside from the striking application I can't figure out how to directly apply that specific part to self-defense.

If you can see the previous part as a takedown the backfist (x-stop) could be a followup strike to put down your opponent.

The previous part being the high block/low block/back stance that gets converted to the high block/inside chop/front stance.

That can be construed as a release from a rear bear hug or both hands being grabbed from behind.

I hope this makes sense.

I'll ask my master and respond.

In ITF Taekwon-do, in pattern Yul Gok, there is an x-stance with a high left back-fist side strike; the student gets into the stance by jumping from the previous move.

When I learned the pattern, the jump was explained as either jumping over a fallen attacker to strike the next attacker, or jumping a small stream or low wall to close with an attacker.

The x-stance helps you stop the motion of the jump in a narrower stance than (for instance) walking stance.

It also gives you the flexibility to turn out of the x-stance to perform another technique.

Question: Whilst I've never practised an  X-stop , I was wondering what the benefits of it are? The move consists of a jump, punctuated by the back foot being placed a head of the front foot, and behind it, forming an X shape.  It seems like it would put you off balance, but it may be good for turning? I don't know.

Benefits of an X-Stop in Tae Kwon Do?

You should actually be able to land quite on balance in this stance: get your instructor to check how you're placing your feet.  Make sure your knees are bent and you're dropping your weight low, but without bending your knees so low that you lose strength in the stance.  From the x-stop, you can drop back into a sparring stance, or easily turn in either direction, or even rotate through 180 to defend against an attacker behind you.   In ITF Taekwondo-do, in pattern Yul Gok, there is an x-stance with a high left back-fist side strike; the student gets into the stance by jumping from the previous move.  The x-stance helps you stop the motion of the jump in a narrower stance than (for instance) walking stance.

The main benefits  of the X stop is to deliver power with movement through varying positions and stances.

The main advantage of the X stop is to deliver power whilst moving forward, allowing for rotation and turning, as well as varying positions and stances.


I usually wash it at hottest possible temperature, and that does the trick (beware though, this might shrink a new dogi).

If it is very dirty, I handwash it with plenty of washing detergent (making sure it gets in there), and then let it soak overnight, before I wash it.

Back when I was a kid, my mom used to soak it with chlorine to get the worst grass and blood stains out.

This works, but it has some drawbacks.

First of all, it will bleach all the colours from badges etc.

It may also damage the fabric over time.

If you sweat a lot, I would recommend soaking it in water as soon as possible after class.

You may also consider bringing two jackets to class, and change midway through, if it becomes too unbearable.

I find wearing a 100% cotton undershirt helps if you can tolerate it.

It acts as an intermediate layer and worse case can be swapped with another.

For stains that manage to get past this using some sort of spray'n'wash product is useful but it needs to applied after a training session or soaked in combination to help remove the stubborn ones.

Oxi-Clean, baking soda and white vinegar in the washing machine works.

Baking soda and vinegar are cheap comparatively to the other cleaning agents.

Off the top of my head I dont know why they work so good, but they do.

I'd have to google the chemistry reasons as to why they work so good

but I can vouch that they do the trick.

Don't use clorox or bleach on your gi as for it destroys and weakens the fabric.

Back when I trained more, I was nicknamed "tidal-wave" because of the amount that I sweat.

A few tips I used: 1) wear an undershirt.

Not fun when it's 8 zillion degrees out in the middle of summer, but it works well. 2) stash a small dishtowel up your sleeve.

Between sets/exercises, dab at the sweat with the towel.

3) bring your gi to class and wear street clothes.

Pack a clotheshanger.

After class change into your street clothes.

This limits the time you are sweating in the gi.

Yes, even when you are driving to class, you are perspiring a little (the average human perspires

about 1-2 pints per day even when inactive).

4) put the gi in the washer (and undershirt and towel) as soon as you get home.

Run it through a rinse cycle.

I typically put it in the washer, and it was still going at bedtime, so I'd leave it overnight.

When the rinse is done, wash it with whatever detergent you prefer, but also add the recommended amount of oxy-clean.

As I understand the chemistry, Oxyclean is a peroxide (such as h2o2) that gets between the fabric fibers and then the unstable oxygen atom breaks off and takes the salt/uric acid molecules with it.

All I know is that Tide + Oxyclean removes an amazing amount of stains (sweat, grass, blood, food, etc.)

The above method worked for my white, black, and red gis.

I had a off-white/cream coloured gi back in the day

and that was great for not showing sweat stains.

If you have to have a bright-white gi, there are non-chlorine, colour-fast bleaches you can get today.

I'm not sure what my mother did about the blood stains, but that's a separate conversation.

(Yes, I lived at home and was pampered. :-)

I use a Wipp-tube (you might know of this brand better as 'Persil').

It has a handy hard plastic brush that helps the rubbing.

Wipp is also perfect for stained collars of regular shirts.

Question: I find even with things like Napisan etc my Gi ends up with stains around the neck and Sleeves.  Are there any ways to keep it pure white?

What are the ways to get sweat stains out of a Gi?

If it is very dirty, handwash it with plenty of washing detergent (Oxi-Clean, baking soda and white vinegar in the washing machine works), and then let it soak overnight, before washing. Baking soda and vinegar are cheap comparatively to the other cleaning agents.

There are 3 most recommended ways to keep the GI pure white  -  handwashing with overninght soaking, baking soda with vinegar and brands such as Persil and Oxiclean.

If it is very dirty, I handwash it with plentry of washing detergent(making sure it gets in there), and then let it soak overnight, before I wash it.

Recommended ways to keep the GI pure white are handwashing with overninght soaking, baking soda with vinegar and brands such as Persil and Oxiclean.