Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Options
1…5758606263…331

Comments

  • Options
    #1772
    Blueshoe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    kilns wrote: »
    I have to laugh when ever I hear the USA declared as the greatest democracy in the world

    Ireland must be right up there. You can get into the dail on the 8th, 9th etc count.
    What is that about


  • Options
    #1773
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    The flip side to your argument is - "if you're going to keep the Electoral college , then why have the USA , why not just have 50 independent nation states?"

    It's not about getting rid of it , it's about modernising it to make it more fit for purpose.

    Each State still needs to have it's input into the decision , but there has to be some allowance for the will of the overall Majority.

    Maybe adjust the number of total EC votes and add a "bounty" for the popular vote - 50 EC votes for winning the Popular vote.

    Or even , just ratify the compact and distribute the EC votes according to votes gained rather then winner takes all.

    It's probably a bit of both of those to be honest. If "every vote counted" you wouldn't have this bizarre focus on a handful of states with each side almost completely ignoring voters in the "wrong" states.

    If closing the gap in California from 60:40 to 55:45 or whatever meant an extra 10 EC votes then the GOP would put in the effort there , also more GOP voters would come out to vote as their vote might matter this time.

    Same for Democrat voters in heavy Red states..
    There is currently a push within California to split it into three or six separate states because of the mob rule style democracy and its corresponding idiotic legislation, and that mob rule mentality has made it almost unbearable for most of Californians living outside a few select areas.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1774
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    Ireland must be right up there. You can get into the dail on the 8th, 9th etc count.
    What is that about

    It’s called proportional representation although not perfect it’s why Ireland is not a two party duopoly sh1tshow like the US


  • Options
    #1775
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    notobtuse wrote: »
    There is currently a push within California to split it into three or six separate states because of the mob rule style democracy and its corresponding idiotic legislation, and that mob rule mentality has made it almost unbearable for most of Californians living outside a few select areas.

    Again just to clarify mob rule = democracy.


  • Options
    #1776
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,636 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    notobtuse wrote: »
    There is currently a push within California to split it into three or six separate states because of the mob rule style democracy and its corresponding idiotic legislation, and that mob rule mentality has made it almost unbearable for most of Californians living outside a few select areas.

    I guess this is another example of American Exceptionalism.

    What you describe above is a refusal to accept majority rule and a refusal to accept compromise. Which isn't Democracy.

    Again - If that's what people want , then why persist with the United States at all given that it seems you have so little in common with each other?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1777
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    I guess this is another example of American Exceptionalism.

    What you describe above is a refusal to accept majority rule and a refusal to accept compromise. Which isn't Democracy.

    Again - If that's what people want , then why persist with the United States at all given that it seems you have so little in common with each other?

    It is such a diverse country with so many different ideals and beliefs from the Bible Belt to California. The EU countries have more in common with each other than the United States have.


  • Options
    #1778
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Wrong, again. In 1776 Delaware had a population of 59,094 and Rhode Island 68,825. At the time Virginia had a population 747,610, Pennsylvania at 434,373, and Massachusetts at 378,787.

    The US is a coalition of sovereign states, and that’s why it's called the United States of America, and the states serve as the legal foundation. The system was set up so that one state would not override the interests of the others, and no state would be completely excluded. And since any state might make the difference in an election because of the electoral vote every candidate must consider each state’s interests.

    Think about it, if you still have the states and a all a candidate would have to do is campaign in a half dozen highly populated states and promise them the world having all the rest of the states pay for it and win the election by popular vote. The Founding Fathers created a republic form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states.

    Is it undemocratic? You betcha, and it intended to be that way. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason as it would have prevented us from emerging as a stable union. It has worked out for us rather well, I'd say. Why change a good thing. No use having another civil war.

    And shock horror it’s the republicans who gain from this by not representing the majority of the people. As someone already highlighted, the senate can be controlled by states with populations much lower than that if New York And California. So the people in these states have to abide by laws set by lets face it some cases very backward people


  • Options
    #1779
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    I guess this is another example of American Exceptionalism.

    What you describe above is a refusal to accept majority rule and a refusal to accept compromise. Which isn't Democracy.

    Again - If that's what people want , then why persist with the United States at all given that it seems you have so little in common with each other?
    We are mostly one in the really important matters. And our diversity makes us exceptional as a nation.

    But it’s all a moot point. To change the way the president is selected it would take a Constitutional amendment, which would require the votes of two-thirds of the US House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-fourths of the states. I don’t see the bolded happening.

    But some states are finding a way around how the system works. A number of states have signed onto a pact that guarantees their Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote, no matter the outcome in their individual states. Mostly those states that have gone for Democrats in recent years, of course. If more states go along with this pact a popular vote would ultimately decide the president. I guess we’ll see how that works. Hopefully it won’t happen in my lifetime as I wouldn’t want to see another civil war.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1780
    2u2me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭2u2me


    kilns wrote: »
    It’s called proportional representation although not perfect it’s why Ireland is not a two party duopoly sh1tshow like the US

    Better to have our 3 party **** show is it? 37-37-35

    To quote quin dub
    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    I guess this is another example of American Irish Exceptionalism


  • Options
    #1781
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    2u2me wrote: »
    Better to have our 3 party **** show is it? 37-37-35

    To quote quin dub
    We do basically have three parties. As of February 2020, Gallup polling found that 29% of Americans identified as Democrats, 30% identified as Republican, and 39% as Independent.

    Wow, more Republicans than Democrats in a long time. There is light at the end of the tunnel. If this trend keeps up maybe that popular vote might not be such a bad thing in a few years. ;)

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1782
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Wrong, again. In 1776 Delaware had a population of 59,094 and Rhode Island 68,825. At the time Virginia had a population 747,610, Pennsylvania at 434,373, and Massachusetts at 378,787.

    As I said, relatively evenly spread. I don't see what I was wrong about.
    The US is a coalition of sovereign states, and that’s why it's called the United States of America, and the states serve as the legal foundation. The system was set up so that one state would not override the interests of the others, and no state would be completely excluded. And since any state might make the difference in an election because of the electoral vote every candidate must consider each state’s interests.

    Think about it, if you still have the states and a all a candidate would have to do is campaign in a half dozen highly populated states and promise them the world having all the rest of the states pay for it and win the election by popular vote. The Founding Fathers created a republic form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states.

    Is it undemocratic? You betcha, and it intended to be that way. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason as it would have prevented us from emerging as a stable union. It has worked out for us rather well, I'd say. Why change a good thing. No use having another civil war.

    Cheers for the completely unnecessary civics lesson. None of that contradicts what I said. The system is simply too skewed when the population disparity between states reaches where it is now.

    Do you think the electoral college is fair?

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #1783
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    Ireland must be right up there. You can get into the dail on the 8th, 9th etc count.
    What is that about

    Jesus, you really don't get the PR system do you? It's far more representative to elect people by PR than it is first past the post.

    A party that gets 51% of the vote in a PR system us going to get about 51% of the seats in parliament.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #1784
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    notobtuse wrote: »
    There is currently a push within California to split it into three or six separate states because of the mob rule style democracy and its corresponding idiotic legislation, and that mob rule mentality has made it almost unbearable for most of Californians living outside a few select areas.

    A push from who? Rich conservatives I'd imagine.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #1785
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Brian? wrote: »
    Cheers for the completely unnecessary civics lesson. None of that contradicts what I said. The system is simply too skewed when the population disparity between states reaches where it is now.

    Do you think the electoral college is fair?

    Seemed you needed one.

    Yes, for the United States of America.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1786
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    2u2me wrote: »
    Better to have our 3 party **** show is it? 37-37-35

    To quote quin dub

    Well it means compromise with different parties coming together and not 5 years of a choice of one regime or another.


  • Options
    #1787
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Seemed you needed on.

    Yes, for the United States of America.

    He would it’s the only way a republican president can be elected


  • Options
    #1788
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    kilns wrote: »
    He would it’s the only way a republican president can be elected
    Remember Reagan?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1789
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    Anyone putting betting money on Biden?

    Seems a shoe in as Trump getting slated for doing a bad job since day 1. Free money. Odds shortening all the time.
    You're for Biden, right? If I were you I'd bet everything you own on Biden. Good luck with that. :p

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1790
    Blueshoe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    Brian? wrote: »
    Jesus, you really don't get the PR system do you? It's far more representative to elect people by PR than it is first past the post.

    A party that gets 51% of the vote in a PR system us going to get about 51% of the seats in parliament.

    I get it but I don't like it. Is that allowed?


  • Options
    #1791
    Blueshoe
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,964 ✭✭✭Blueshoe


    notobtuse wrote: »
    You're for Biden, right? If I were you I'd bet everything you own on Biden. Good luck with that. :p

    We can have a bet between us if you want. Payable via revolut or PayPal if you prefer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1792
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    We can have a bet between us if you want. Payable via revolut or PayPal if you prefer.
    Perhaps, but I wouldn't want to take advantage of you. Let's wait to see if Biden makes it to the general election first.. or even remembers where the convention will be held. Wouldn't want you to lose at the gate before the gun even goes off.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1793
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Seemed you needed one.

    Yes, for the United States of America.

    Just because I don't agree something is a good system, doesn't change the fact that I know why the system exists.

    So cool, you don't believe the office of POTUS should be decided by the most votes.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #1794
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,436 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Blueshoe wrote: »
    I get it but I don't like it. Is that allowed?

    You're absolutely allowed to dislike it.

    You asked "what's that about" though.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #1795
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Remember Reagan?

    I do and unfortunately his era is long long forgotten. The republicans are a totally different animal now


  • Options
    #1796
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    I love the New York Times response from the lawyer representing Sean Hannity (shares lawyer with Trump) asking to retract articles and apologize for reporting in a 12 page letter about his comments on the Coronavirus. They wrote a short letter back saying NO ha ha


  • Options
    #1797
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    kilns wrote: »
    I love the New York Times response from the lawyer representing Sean Hannity (shares lawyer with Trump) asking to retract articles and apologize for reporting in a 12 page letter about his comments on the Coronavirus. They wrote a short letter back saying NO ha ha
    They better hope they're flush with cash to pay all those attorney fees for a long drawn out court battle. How long till they start begging for money to pay for legal fees or be forced to let some of their esteemed biased journalists go?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1798
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    kilns wrote: »
    I do and unfortunately his era is long long forgotten. The republicans are a totally different animal now

    Not forgotten in the hearts of the prime voters.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #1799
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    kilns wrote: »
    I do and unfortunately his era is long long forgotten. The republicans are a totally different animal now

    Raegan turned out to be an absolutely terrible president, and the irony is so many of the woes both sides of the political aisle complain about can be traced back to him, from neoliberalism, to trickle down economics, to exploding deficits and debt, to cementing racism as a cornerstone of the American right (even Nixon didn't court the religious right like Reagan did, a movement founded not over abortion but over having to share the private schools they flocked to post civil we rights with *shock* black kids), to dividing the nation wherever possible, to huge wage disparities, to openly breaking international law, and that's just the start of it.

    Reagan wasn't only an awful president, he was an awful piece of **** generally.


  • Options
    #1800
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    notobtuse wrote: »
    They better hope they're flush with cash to pay all those attorney fees for a long drawn out court battle. How long till they start begging for money to pay for legal fees or be forced to let some of their esteemed biased journalists go?

    You just don’t get it do you. They quoted Hannity word for word and Hannity tried the Trump trick of suing for everything. It’s funny when your own words are recorded on TV every night. This will disappear now otherwise Hannity will look like a fool and end up paying all the costs


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1801
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    Carfacemandog wrote: »
    Raegan turned out to be an absolutely terrible president, and the irony is so many of the woes both sides of the political aisle complain about can be traced back to him, from neoliberalism, to trickle down economics, to exploding deficits and debt, to cementing racism as a cornerstone of the American right (even Nixon didn't court the religious right like Reagan did, a movement founded not over abortion but over having to share the private schools they flocked to post civil we rights with *shock* black kids), to dividing the nation wherever possible, to huge wage disparities, to openly breaking international law, and that's just the start of it.

    Reagan wasn't only an awful president, he was an awful piece of **** generally.

    And your opinion of Trump?

    This will all pre tea party etc. America politically is a much much worse place today than it was then.

    John McCain was the exception 2016-2019, whereas his type were much more common back then. Politicians who could work with others while today they have all sold their soul to the political devil. Lindsey Graham a case in point


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement