2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Guy:Incognito

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't care what you said. So I’m not getting this right? Mary Lou McDonald, with a popular vote of 535,595, beat the next candidate with the most votes, Micheál Martin, who had 484,320 popular votes. According to you Hillary Clinton should have become President of the US because she received more popular votes. How is Prime Minster McDonald doing? I mean, isn't how all the civilized countries do things?

Sinn Fein might have gotten that number of votes. But Mary Lou Mcdonald got 11,223.

As much as people like to bellow how they didnt vote for this or that Taoiseach, only the people in their constituencies vote for them

America has a straight run off between whoever the parties think popular enough to win. We have politicians doing politics.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is it though? Trump tells us how despicable these people are and his supporters show how they do the same thing he does.

Doesn't that make him everything he calls them?

Yes. It is a great point. It shows how willing people are to dismiss peoples feelings as long as what is being said supports their argument. It happens on both sides. Yet some on here seem to think it is a "right" side only phenomenon.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So you agree all the bluster by Trump is no more than baseless rubbish designed to garner favour from people in the election

Or an election campaign as some may call it.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't care what you said. So I’m not getting this right? Mary Lou McDonald, with a popular vote of 535,595, beat the next candidate with the most votes, Micheál Martin, who had 484,320 popular votes. According to you Hillary Clinton should have become President of the US because she received more popular votes. How is Prime Minster McDonald doing? I mean, isn't how all the civilized countries do things?

Jesus, this is just the height of ignorance.

In Ireland Michael D Higgins got more votes, so he was elected president.

In France, Emmanuel Macron. Ditto.

See that's how that works. You're mixing up parliamentary elections with directly elected premiers.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. It is a great point. It shows how willing people are to dismiss peoples feelings as long as what is being said supports their argument. It happens on both sides. Yet some on here seem to think it is a "right" side only phenomenon.

But that not what I said. If they are saying others do the same as Trump and Trump calls those people names, then it stands to reason the names apply to him too.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

Or an election campaign as some may call it.

So he is a liar?

and not just normal politician stuff of election promises. Proper scumbag making **** up directly about named people.

Brian?

I honestly can't believe we're back to giving civics lessons on electoral systems.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't care what you said. So I’m not getting this right? Mary Lou McDonald, with a popular vote of 535,595, beat the next candidate with the most votes, Micheál Martin, who had 484,320 popular votes. According to you Hillary Clinton should have become President of the US because she received more popular votes. How is Prime Minster McDonald doing? I mean, isn't how all the civilized countries do things?

I'm going to blow your mind even more. In France there are other 3 candidates for President. If someone doesn't get more than 50% of the vote, it's reduced to 2 and there is a head to head run off.

Amazing isn't it? People getting to partake in genuine democracy.

Guy:Incognito

Brian? wrote: »

I honestly can't believe we're back to giving civics lessons on electoral systems.

The main thing people need to remember is that Donald loves him some mob rule.


https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/president-trump-reaffirms-his-long-standing-opposition-electoral-college-and-favors-nationwide-vote

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So he is a liar?

and not just normal politician stuff of election promises. Proper scumbag making **** up directly about named people.

Yes.

Trump has lied an awful lot. And he also said things which are wholly inappropriate in line with what would be expected from a president. I've always said that.

Your definition of proper scumbag lies doesn't sit well with me though. It's like you think that this is specific only to trump.

It is my belief that under the same scrutiny, you would see many other politicians and presidential candidates, past and present, to have made similar, and in some cases more, egregious lies.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

I'm going to blow your mind even more. In France there are other 3 candidates for President. If someone doesn't get more than 50% of the vote, it's reduced to 2 and there is a head to head run off.

Amazing isn't it? People getting to partake in genuine democracy.

Are you saying that America isn't a democracy?

notobtuse

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Sinn Fein might have gotten that number of votes. But Mary Lou Mcdonald got 11,223.

As much as people like to bellow how they didnt vote for this or that Taoiseach, only the people in their constituencies vote for them

America has a straight run off between whoever the parties think popular enough to win. We have politicians doing politics.

The parties decide who become the Taoiseach (majority of the voting members of Dáil Éireann)? So the people's vote doesn't even count? That sounds worse than what we have over here.

duploelabs

Brian? wrote: »

I honestly can't believe we're back to giving civics lessons on electoral systems.

Back whilst the house just voted on impeachment, he didn't understand that Trump is categorically and forever impeached. So if he can't understand his own civics , how do you expect him to understand ours

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But that not what I said. If they are saying others do the same as Trump and Trump calls those people names, then it stands to reason the names apply to him too.

Sure.

But that's on the proviso that you admit that the flip side is also true.

If others are doing the same as trump, your arguments against trump are invalid as you are supporting people who are the same as him?

Odd argument.

I've been saying each side is as bad as each other. Your point seems to back that up.

MadYaker

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes.

Trump has lied an awful lot. And he also said things which are wholly inappropriate in line with what would be expected from a president. I've always said that.

Your definition of proper scumbag lies doesn't sit well with me though. It's like you think that this is specific only to trump.

It is my belief that under the same scrutiny, you would see many other politicians and presidential candidates, past and present, to have made similar, and in some cases more, egregious lies.

Obama received just as much scrutiny. This idea that the only reason trump comes across as a cnut is the media portrayals or media attention is complete nonsense. You only need to look at his Twitter feed to get a perfectly accurate picture of who he is.

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are you saying that America isn't a democracy?

It isn't a great one. The electoral college and Senate representation are deep flaws IMO.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

I'm going to blow your mind even more. In France there are other 3 candidates for President. If someone doesn't get more than 50% of the vote, it's reduced to 2 and there is a head to head run off.

Amazing isn't it? People getting to partake in genuine democracy.

Thanks, and not at all. What you're saying is a popular vote means nothing. That's basically what I've been saying about the voting system here.

MadYaker

MadYaker wrote: »

Obama received just as much scrutiny. This idea that the only reason trump comes across as a cnut is the media portrayals or media attention is complete nonsense. You only need to look at his Twitter feed to get a perfectly accurate picture of who he is.

Now.... come on. Obama was under as much scrutiny as trump?

That is wholly untrue and if for one minute you think that trump and obama have been given the same treatment, and dissection of every statement, from the press and that is genuinely your position, there is no point in discussing this with you.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

The parties decide who become the Taoiseach (majority of the voting members of Dáil Éireann)? So the people's vote doesn't even count? That sounds worse than what we have over here.

People elect TDs, TDs elect the Taoiseach. So the people's vote counts.

Another mind blowing fact: the cabinet are all elected too. Not randomly chosen from large donors. Imagine that!!!

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

It isn't a great one. The electoral college and Senate representation are deep flaws IMO.

Personally I think the electoral college is a good thing. But sure, opinions eh?

But we agree it's a democracy?

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

Thanks, and not at all. What you're saying is a popular vote means nothing. That's basically what I've been saying about the voting system here.

Have you actually read my posts. The president of France is elected by popular vote, they have to get 50% of the votes.

Why the game playing? It's stupid

Brian?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Personally I think the electoral college is a good thing. But sure, opinions eh?

But we agree it's a democracy?

It is. A badly flawed one

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

Have you actually read my posts. The president of France is elected by popular vote, they have to get 50% of the votes.

Why the game playing? It's stupid

I guess it’s my interpretation of popular vote versus yours. Here in the US...

In a United States presidential election, the popular vote is the total number or percentage of votes cast for a candidate by voters in the 50 states and Washington, D.C.; the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide is said to have won the popular vote.

So if we had 10,000 people running, the one person that gets the most votes (even if it's only 1%) has gotten and won the popular vote. But I guess we get that wrong too, eh?

Sweetemotion

Brian? wrote: »

Have you actually read my posts. The president of France is elected by popular vote, they have to get 50% of the votes.

Why the game playing? It's stupid

You'd have a point if France had 50 different states with their own sovereigns.

Brian?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You'd have a point if France had 50 different states with their own sovereigns.

They don't have their own sovereigns. They have their own executives

Sweetemotion

Brian? wrote: »

They don't have their own sovereigns. They have their own executives

Their own executives then.


What's fairer than each state having a say in elections.

osarusan

This all came from the post that that majority vote = mob rule.

Now, I don't have an issue with the electoral college. I don't see the point of it tbh*, but it's their system and everybody knows that and plays the game accordingly.

But it remains the case that suggesting that the person with more votes winning an election = 'mob rule' is still utterly stupid.

Especially as even in US presidential elections, 'mob rule' is the system for producing winners at state level in the first place.

*I think it would be a better system if the distribution of electoral seats reflected the ratio of votes in the state, similar to what happens in Maine and Nebraska, rather than the winner takes all system in the other 48 states.

notobtuse

Isn’t it ironic that the very same day Twitter incorrectly fact-checks trump on mail in voter fraud the Department of Justice filed voter fraud charges against a West Virginia mail carrier for altering absentee ballots.

Trump should make Twitter pay for their ignoramus move. He should simply stop using Twitter and pick a different platform dedicated to free speech and data privacy. Platforms like Minds, CloutHub, and Parler. Bam. Millions of Twitter users would also migrate... Both those that like Trump and hate him.

If he does this expect all the executive heads to roll at Twitter.

notobtuse

osarusan wrote: »

This all came from the post that that majority vote = mob rule.

Now, I don't have an issue with the electoral college. I don't see the point of it tbh, but it's their system and everybody knows that and plays the game accordingly.

But it remains the case that suggesting that the person with more votes winning an election = 'mob rule' is still utterly stupid.

Especially as even in US presidential elections, 'mob rule' is the system for producing winners at state level in the first place.

So explain to me what mob rule is, then.

Here's what it is considered in politics over here...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

And it was considered Mob Rule from the beginning...
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rulespurious-quotation

Timberrrrrrrr

notobtuse wrote: »

So explain to me what mob rule is, then.

Here's what it is considered in politics over here...
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rulespurious-quotation

Why don't you ask the person who introduced the phrase to the thread?