2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Quin_Dub

eire4 wrote: »

Also it turns out the job numbers while better then expected were not what was reported Friday instead of going down roughly a percent they miscalculated and the unemployment actually increased. They at first released unemployment numbers at roughly 13.5% down from 14.5% the previous month. But they had to retract that after admitting a miscalculation and that unemployment actually increased to somewhere north of 16% not as bad as some predicted but nonetheless a further increase in unemployment not what was originally published.

Not exactly.. The numbers for April and May were both wrong for the same reason. A "Reason for loss of job" category which is normally excluded from the calculation ('Other'- usually used for temporary time off like bereavement leave etc.) was used for a lot of the Covid job losses incorrectly.

So April should have been something like 20% but was reported as 15% or so and May should have been 16% but was reported at 13.6%.

Unemployment did decrease, but not by as much and from a much higher level than previously reported.

16% is still almost 2x the rate there was during the last recession

HDMI

eire4 wrote: »

My point still stands though. Plus you can also add in that the use of the electoral college in other words going state by state means that elections can and have been won by the candidate with the fewer number of votes nationally. Another example of how undemocratic the US is and the whole electoral college system in electing their president is very much part of that. All again as I say before you even get into the levels of corruption, money, voter suppression etc which has left the US IMHO as an oligarchy today rather then a democracy.

I think without the electoral college the votes from the fly over states wouldn't count. The electoral college kinda balances it out, otherwise it would be a Democrat win every election.

Kermit.de.frog

eagle eye wrote: »

How would you compare it to the EU and the power each country has regardless of population?

It's entirely different.

EU member states are sovereign countries with vetoes in all critical areas.

The USA is a country and the states are not the sovereign entity.

It's completely incomparable.

The electoral college is there in the US to ensure smaller states are not trampled but overall it's pretty undemocratic when it leads to the most popular candidate nationally not winning.

It should go because as small states they should not exert such influence on the nation anyway.

eire4

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Not exactly.. The numbers for April and May were both wrong for the same reason. A "Reason for loss of job" category which is normally excluded from the calculation ('Other'- usually used for temporary time off like bereavement leave etc.) was used for a lot of the Covid job losses incorrectly.

So April should have been something like 20% but was reported as 15% or so and May should have been 16% but was reported at 13.6%.

Unemployment did decrease, but not by as much and from a much higher level than previously reported.

16% is still almost 2x the rate there was during the last recession

Thanks for that clarification. I will say with regard to the 16% number they actually admit that the correct number was likely much higher and closer to 19% so again a decrease still if the April number was 20%. Either way the numbers are second only to the great depression of the 1930's and shockingly bad.

HDMI

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It should go because as small states they should not exert such influence on the nation anyway.

That argument only works if you want to have a Democrat win every time there is an election. So you would be happy with the big states telling the little states what to do?

The electoral college gives a middle ground for each side to try fight over and that's what allows different presidents from each party. If it is abolished you would have a one party system with the Republicans always in the minority.

eire4

HDMI wrote: »

I think without the electoral college the votes from the fly over states wouldn't count. The electoral college kinda balances it out, otherwise it would be a Democrat win every election.

I get what your saying but again my point stands the US is not a democracy and the electoral college is but one example of how that is built in never mind the current levels of corruption, bribery, voter suppression etc which have left the US IMHO as an oligarchy currently rather then a democracy.

eire4

HDMI wrote: »

That argument only works if you want to have a Democrat win every time there is an election. So you would be happy with the big states telling the little states what to do?

The electoral college gives a middle ground for each side to try fight over and that's what allows different presidents from each party. If it is abolished you would have a one party system with the Republicans always in the minority.

The big states cannot boss the little states around you still have to get past the senate which is vastly more undemocratic then any issues with the undemocratic nature of the electoral college given how it vastly over represents the voters in small population states like Wyoming with only a little over half a million people and California with about 40 million.

Kermit.de.frog

HDMI wrote: »

That argument only works if you want to have a Democrat win every time there is an election. So you would be happy with the big states telling the little states what to do?

The electoral college gives a middle ground for each side to try fight over and that's what allows different presidents from each party. If it is abolished you would have a one party system with the Republicans always in the minority.

There is no middle ground.

If the majority of Americans want democrat or republican so be it.

If they are always democrat then that is democracy. That is what Americans want.

HDMI

eire4 wrote: »

I get what your saying but again my point stands the US is not a democracy and the electoral college is but one example of how that is built in never mind the current levels of corruption, bribery, voter suppression etc which have left the US IMHO as an oligarchy currently rather then a democracy.

I have to admit I found it totally different after I moved over. I just assumed the President ruled all, but I was shocked at how much power the governor's of each state have and the mayor's of the bigger cities are just as powerful.

It's a strange system that you elect a president for your country but yet the individual states can stick their two fingers up at the President whenever it suits.

HDMI

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There is no middle ground.

If the majority of Americans want democrat or republican so be it.

If they are always democrat then that is democracy. That is what Americans want.

If in the long term you want the US to stay a democracy then you need maintain the balance. California and New York will never change so its always going to be tough to have anything other than a Democrat presidency. The country would become a major sh!t show, at least when each party has a chance you get different flavors of sh!t.

eagle eye

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

It should go because as small states they should not exert such influence on the nation anyway.

But this is the case in the EU.
They are all seperate states. If you try to change things they'll immediately start talking about independence. California has had many people proposing independence for many years and it's got quite serious on occasion.

Kermit.de.frog

eagle eye wrote: »

But this is the case in the EU.
They are all seperate states. If you try to change things they'll immediately start talking about independence. California has had many people proposing independence for many years and it's got quite serious on occasion.

The EU is not a country.

The US is.

They have decisions to make around their electoral system and whether it is right that a handful of swing states decide things every time in contravention of the popular vote.

And the numbers advocating independence in any state are so miniscule as to be utterly irrelevant. That's always been the case.

lawrencesummers

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The EU is not a country.

The US is.

They have decisions to make around their electoral system and whether it is right that a handful of swing states decide things every time in contravention of the popular vote.

And the numbers advocating independence in any state are so miniscule as to be utterly irrelevant. That's always been the case.

Are some of those states the places that Hillary ignored and Donald milked the last time round?

kilns

hotmail.com wrote: »

I said we know that! Did you think I just woke up?

The point is that Democrats shouldn't be taking endorsements from a man with so much blood on his hands. And it's very disappointing to see so many Irish so fond of Powell, particularly given so many here opposed the Iraq War in 2003.

Ok so I get you are saying that Democrats should have higher standards than Republicans? Some say the Democrats need to keep their standards high and not sink to the current levels of the Republican Party others say get down in the dirt and beat them at their own game.

My feeling is anything which defeats the worst human being to hold the office of the president of the United States should be used because you know well if Powell endorsed Trump, Powel would have been the greatest general in the history of the United States.

kilns

eagle eye wrote: »

But this is the case in the EU.
They are all seperate states. If you try to change things they'll immediately start talking about independence. California has had many people proposing independence for many years and it's got quite serious on occasion.

To gain independence from the union you need I think 2/3s backing from the other states. For example California which in its own right is bigger and richer than most countries and can be entitled to talk about independence considering people like Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell can dictate what laws are enacted there. But it will never happen as California contributes too much to the federal funds which helps bail out weaker states like Kentucky

golfball37

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The EU is not a country.

The US is.

They have decisions to make around their electoral system and whether it is right that a handful of swing states decide things every time in contravention of the popular vote.

And the numbers advocating independence in any state are so miniscule as to be utterly irrelevant. That's always been the case.

It’s a federation of states with central authority the same as the EU intends to be some day. The constitution of the USA quite rightly looks to limit central powers where ever possible. It would be ridiculous in a land as disparate as Europe that California and 2 other big states could influence what an agrarian poor state such as Idaho can do. Checks and balances inherent including the electoratal college make it for more democratic than it needs to be. I say well done to them

Igotadose

Trump's DC wall getting festooned with artwork. Unsurprisingly, it's not pro-Trump:

https://dcist.com/story/20/06/07/the-new-white-house-fence-is-getting-covered-in-protest-art/

kilns

golfball37 wrote: »

It’s a federation of states with central authority the same as the EU intends to be some day. The constitution of the USA quite rightly looks to limit central powers where ever possible. It would be ridiculous in a land as disparate as Europe that California and 2 other big states could influence what an agrarian poor state such as Idaho can do. Checks and balances inherent including the electoratal college make it for more democratic than it needs to be. I say well done to them

Equally it’s ridiculous that a state with a tiny population in comparison can have such an influence on the laws in the bigger more prosperous state. Most recent example Lynching is still lawful because one senator from a small state (Rand Paul Kentucky) will not vote to outlaw it.

The electoral college is not democratic also. You are voting on a leader for the whole United States yet the person most people vote for does not get elected. Why would a republican bother voting in a presidential election in New York and vice versus a democratic in Mississippi. Their votes are rendered useless which is the opposite if democracy. While voters in states like on Ohio and a Florida yield much more power.

Politicians know the situation and campaign based on it. Doesn’t make it democratic though

golfball37

eire4 wrote: »

My point still stands though. Plus you can also add in that the use of the electoral college in other words going state by state means that elections can and have been won by the candidate with the fewer number of votes nationally. Another example of how undemocratic the US is and the whole electoral college system in electing their president is very much part of that. All again as I say before you even get into the levels of corruption, money, voter suppression etc which has left the US IMHO as an oligarchy today rather then a democracy.

Not to argue a moot point but you said the college overturned election results including 2000 and 2016. That’s not true. Andrew Jackson was the only winner who was overturned. Winning the popular vote is not winning.

The rest of your post I pretty much concede you make valid points.

hotmail.com

kilns wrote: »

Ok so I get you are saying that Democrats should have higher standards than Republicans? Some say the Democrats need to keep their standards high and not sink to the current levels of the Republican Party others say get down in the dirt and beat them at their own game.

My feeling is anything which defeats the worst human being to hold the office of the president of the United States should be used because you know well if Powell endorsed Trump, Powel would have been the greatest general in the history of the United States.

The greatest general? Oh dear god. The man lied again and again and it led to the deaths of thousands of people.

hotmail.com

eire4 wrote: »

I get what your saying but again my point stands the US is not a democracy and the electoral college is but one example of how that is built in never mind the current levels of corruption, bribery, voter suppression etc which have left the US IMHO as an oligarchy currently rather then a democracy.

Voter turnout is shockingly bad as well for a Western country. Just over half come of the electorate vote in presidential elections and even less for other elections.

There are two propaganda traits that Americans are fed - that they have democracy and freedom.

What that actually means in America is anyone's guess. It's a peculiar country.

ELM327

golfball37 wrote: »

Not to argue a moot point but you said the college overturned election results including 2000 and 2016. That’s not true. Andrew Jackson was the only winner who was overturned. Winning the popular vote is not winning.

The rest of your post I pretty much concede you make valid points.

Exactly.
The electoral college is a great way to ensure the population mass in 2 large cities don't rule the entire country.

osarusan

hotmail.com wrote: »

The greatest general? Oh dear god. The man lied again and again and it led to the deaths of thousands of people.

The point being made is that if Powell had supported Trump rather than criticising him, Trump would be saying he was an incredible general, the best general.

frag420

hotmail.com wrote: »

The man lied again and again and it led to the deaths of thousands of people.

Like saying the virus will vanish and there will be little to no deaths in the US?

Timberrrrrrrr

hotmail.com wrote: »

The greatest general? Oh dear god. The man lied again and again and it led to the deaths of thousands of people.

What he means is that Trump would be singing Powels praises now about how he was the best general to ever serve blah blah blah.

And seriously, you want to slate someone for lying while you're constantly defending Trump and the thousands of lies he has told?

hotmail.com

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What he means is that Trump would be singing Powels praises now about how he was the best general to ever serve blah blah blah.

And seriously, you want to slate someone for lying while you're constantly defending Trump and the thousands of lies he has told?

I've never defended any lying of Trump.

hotmail.com

osarusan wrote: »

The point being made is that if Powell had supported Trump rather than criticising him, Trump would be saying he was an incredible general, the best general.

Ah my mistake! Yes point taken. Trump is incredibly shallow.

Podge_irl

The electoral college is not inherently undemocratic - it is not in essence all that different to a parliamentary system. However it does not solve the question it purports to, it simply redirects the power. In a nationwide "winner takes all" then obviously the large cities and states would gain more power (though equally the Republicans in Cali and Democrats in Texas might been somewhat more enfranchised) but as things stand swing states and swing states alone are what counts in elections. The likes of Iowa and Florida have a ridiculously massively outsized impact on the politics of the country.

Quin_Dub

Podge_irl wrote: »

The electoral college is not inherently undemocratic - it is not in essence all that different to a parliamentary system. However it does not solve the question it purports to, it simply redirects the power. In a nationwide "winner takes all" then obviously the large cities and states would gain more power (though equally the Republicans in Cali and Democrats in Texas might been somewhat more enfranchised) but as things stand swing states and swing states alone are what counts in elections. The likes of Iowa and Florida have a ridiculously massively outsized impact on the politics of the country.

Indeed - a solution might be to allocate the Electoral college votes based on % of vote captured rather than winner takes all.

That way , you maintain the influence for each State , but it removes the whole "Swing states" influence thing.

It would mean that it would be worth the effort for a republican to put some work into California for example as they cold be picking up a few EC votes by increasing the % captured , rather then them just not bothering at all.

Currently only about 10 or 12 States get any attention at all in Presidential Elections as the rest are all considered foregone conclusions.

kilns

hotmail.com wrote: »

The greatest general? Oh dear god. The man lied again and again and it led to the deaths of thousands of people.

You didn’t what I said did you and jumped straight in? I said that’s what Trump would say if he endorsed him