The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.


Feck. All this talk of gerrymandering and voter fraud and voting machines being hacked, or whatever, is just crazy. Looking at it from someone outside the USA's point of view it really is absurd and also quite scary when you think of the persecution and level of discrimination & deviousness involved in it all. It's very Machiavellian. Of course we have had trouble in the UK, Gerrymandering has gone on here and is often discussed, but it's no way as prevalent as it is in the States, nor could it be either. I just can't work out how, or why you guys can't just have a much more simplified voting system that would be fairer to everybody? Surely this too must be an issue to run on almost as closely as healthcare?

It really wouldn't be difficult at all to implement a system similar to the UK. It would be costly and time consuming but it could easily be done and with the correct security it would make vote rigging especially difficult too. Obviously the Republicans would hate this and fight against it, but then surely that's more reason to campaign strongly for it?
 
langster said:


Feck. All this talk of gerrymandering and voter fraud and voting machines being hacked, or whatever, is just crazy. Looking at it from someone outside the USA's point of view it really is absurd and also quite scary when you think of the persecution and level of discrimination & deviousness involved in it all. It's very Machiavellian. Of course we have had trouble in the UK, Gerrymandering has gone on here and is often discussed, but it's no way as prevalent as it is in the States, nor could it be either. I just can't work out how, or why you guys can't just have a much more simplified voting system that would be fairer to everybody? Surely this too must be an issue to run on almost as closely as healthcare?

It really wouldn't be difficult at all to implement a system similar to the UK. It would be costly and time consuming but it could easily be done and with the correct security it would make vote rigging especially difficult too. Obviously the Republicans would hate this and fight against it, but then surely that's more reason to campaign strongly for it?
Click to expand...

Gerrymandering is an issue almost as old as the United States itself. Everyone hates it when the other side does it but accepts it when it favors their own side.
 
langster said:


Feck. All this talk of gerrymandering and voter fraud and voting machines being hacked, or whatever, is just crazy. Looking at it from someone outside the USA's point of view it really is absurd and also quite scary when you think of the persecution and level of discrimination & deviousness involved in it all. It's very Machiavellian. Of course we have had trouble in the UK, Gerrymandering has gone on here and is often discussed, but it's no way as prevalent as it is in the States, nor could it be either. I just can't work out how, or why you guys can't just have a much more simplified voting system that would be fairer to everybody? Surely this too must be an issue to run on almost as closely as healthcare?

It really wouldn't be difficult at all to implement a system similar to the UK. It would be costly and time consuming but it could easily be done and with the correct security it would make vote rigging especially difficult too. Obviously the Republicans would hate this and fight against it, but then surely that's more reason to campaign strongly for it?
Click to expand...


That's the entire point of gerrymandering though isn't it? So it's not fair and it does favour one party. It's like complaining that thieves steal things when they could easily buy it for a fair price.
 
Pexbo said:
That's the entire point of gerrymandering though isn't it? So it's not fair and it does favour one party. It's like complaining that thieves steal things when they could easily buy it for a fair price.
Click to expand...
Back during Jerry Brown's first stint as Gov. of California they called it JerryMandering.

It has even been used at times to try to help minorities gain representation by creating minority majority districts. Of course these types of districts can also be used to reduce minority influence overall.

Fwiw the term seems to back to 1813.
 
Last edited:
Pexbo said:
That's the entire point of gerrymandering though isn't it? So it's not fair and it does favour one party. It's like complaining that thieves steal things when they could easily buy it for a fair price.
Click to expand...

Yes of course that's the point, hence why it would be a great idea for the Dems to use it as one of the main weapons in their manifesto. Appeal to the poorer and minority voters and tell them you will sort out the voting issues, couple that with healthcare and it's a powerful tool to help appeal to those voters lost to Trump with him promising them he will MAGA and bring back jobs to their areas and by making coal great again.
 
langster said:
Yes of course that's the point, hence why it would be a great idea for the Dems to use it as one of the main weapons in their manifesto. Appeal to the poorer and minority voters and tell them you will sort out the voting issues, couple that with healthcare and it's a powerful tool to help appeal to those voters lost to Trump with him promising them he will MAGA and bring back jobs to their areas and by making coal great again.
Click to expand...
If they were smart, they'd shine more light on the damage the current administration is already doing, like how the GOP is already sabotaging gerrymandering reforms by cutting funds for the next census (which decides how voting districts are formed).

Instead we have nonstop Russia, whilst environmental, drug war, anything good Obama did, etc. reforms are being rolled back with barely a whisper.
 
Zarlak said:
That's grasping at straws from @williamlegate tbh.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's plenty of things to attack Trump on. Diluting it with petty stuff like this makes it easier for Trump supporters to accuse all of his attackers of being unreasonable.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
If they were smart, they'd shine more light on the damage the current administration is already doing, like how the GOP is already sabotaging gerrymandering reforms by cutting funds for the next census (which decides how voting districts are formed).

Instead we have nonstop Russia, whilst environmental, drug war, anything good Obama did, etc. reforms are being rolled back with barely a whisper.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't think many people are listening or even caring. I've watched Trump speeches with a different slant in recent weeks, and although they confuse and disgust me in equal measure, I can see how he appeals to his supporters. It's going to be a tough nut to crack, and I don't think it will happen without help from Trump himself. Until his supporters lose patience and realise he is going back or not following through with all his promises they are going nowhere.
 
langster said:
I agree, but I don't think many people are listening or even caring. I've watched Trump speeches with a different slant in recent weeks, and although they confuse and disgust me in equal measure, I can see how he appeals to his supporters. It's going to be a tough nut to crack, and I don't think it will happen without help from Trump himself. Until his supporters lose patience and realise he is going back or not following through with all his promises they are going nowhere.
Click to expand...

He's actually doing it quite well, didn't sell the healthcare bill at all and then blames everyone else for it failing.

He made all these campaign promises then delegates them to people he distances himself from when it fails.
 
Adisa said:
Would you mind telling us the minute you're referring to?
Click to expand...

Cliffs: The Democratic party has abandoned the white working class who have seen living standards stagnate for near half a century while the profits of the few have soared. These people turned to Trump because he's the only one providing them with answers and options, even if they're poor ones.

He then gives voice to various related reasons for Trump's success:

America is a deeply racist country, Trump and the Republicans stoke racial animus to produce votes.
Traditional religious republicans voted for the guy not because of his specific policies but because they think he'll further their interest.
Corporate cash and internal machinations in the Democratic party meant the most popular guy (Sanders) didn't have a look in.

He then draws parallels with Brexit, Le Pen and Macron(?!) - identifies Trump's ascension as evidence of the decay of neo-liberal centrism as a viable political doctrine.

Goes on to say that although the Trump administration is deeply authoritarian it isn't fascist - it lacks both the organisation and the central thesis to be so. Nevertheless he thinks that the Republican party is the most dangerous organisation in human history. This is because as an organisation from top to bottom it not only rejects the notion of climate change but actively seeks to undermine attempts at its amelioration. As such it represents an existential threat to the whole human race. He then refers back to the religiosity of the party and how 40% of the country think the second coming is imminent.

This is all scattered throughout the interview, so there's really no specific minute you can point to and say "that bit."
 
Last edited:
Ekkie Thump said:
Cliffs: The Democratic party has abandoned the white working class who have seen living standards stagnate for near half a century while the profits of the few have soared. These people turned to Trump because he's the only one providing them with answers and options, even if they're poor ones.

He then gives voice to various related reasons for Trump's success:

America is a deeply racist country, Trump and the Republicans stoke racial animus to produce votes.
Traditional religious republicans voted for the guy not because of his specific policies but because they think he'll further their interest.
Corporate cash and internal machinations in the Democratic party meant the most popular guy (Sanders) didn't have a look in.

He then draws parallels with Brexit, Le Pen and Macron(?!) - identifies Trump's ascension as evidence of the decay of neo-liberal centrism as a viable political doctrine.

Goes on to say that although the Trump administration is deeply authoritarian it isn't fascist - it lacks both the organisation and the central thesis to be so. Nevertheless he thinks that the Republican party is the most dangerous organisation in human history. This is because as an organisation from top to bottom it not only rejects the notion of climate change but actively seeks to undermine attempts at its amelioration. As such it represents an existential threat to the whole human race. He then refers back to the religiosity of the party and how 40% of the country think the second coming is imminent.

This is all scattered throughout the interview, so there's really no specific minute you can point to and say "that bit."
Click to expand...
Thanks.
 
Doubt it's desperation. He's realised how effective lying to a section of people (who will believe anything) can be. Expect it to increase...
 
Pretty rich to talk about actual military service of another when one never served while receiving multiple deferments. I've noticed a growing trend of persons on the right that seem to find this alright when it was an attacking point against Bill Clinton, Barrack Obama, et al. Back in those days you could find thousands of GOP supporters that felt a POTUS candidate should have served his/her nation and those that deferred during times of war should be forbidden from the office. That no longer seems the case with these "patriots." The two loudest voices have been Nugent and Trump, both too cowardly to have served. Heck, even Bush Jr opted for the comfy Air National Guard component.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.