The news actors & actresses on the curvy couch are something else. I struggle to think of a news program that is hosted by a guy who was in sports talk radio, a weather man for a local television station, & interchangeable vapid blondes.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
The news actors & actresses on the curvy couch are something else. I struggle to think of a news program that is hosted by a guy who was in sports talk radio, a weather man for a local television station, & interchangeable vapid blondes.
The thumpers who voted for him would perform mental gymnastics to be able to absolve him from any blame. There’s literally nothing that he could / can do to sway their complete adoration of Apricot Amin. It’s Stalin-assays levels of a cult of personality.
This is quite the WUM. The fact that Russia interfered in the election is incontestable, you cannot be serious in saying that Russia didn’t do it. It is frightening to hear you potentially imply otherwise.
He speaks in a way that his base can understand. The worst thing one can do to the uneducated is to make them feel ignorant as that’s when the inevitable ‘so you think you are better than me?’ question comes out. It’s a rampant response in the idiocy of the thumper South.
"Super duper missile".
You can only shake your head.
You can only shake your head.
Think he meant super genius missile greatest in the world leader bestest
"I call it the super duper missile."
Thank you. Foxbatt's posts honestly just scare me. It's like an entire months long investigation and subsequent wall-to-wall news coverage just didn't happen. Maybe he only discovered the internet this month.
He’s just taking over for that one guy who I haven’t seen around as our friendly Caf FSB operative.
Can anyone describe the alleged crime behind Obamagate in a few comprehensive sentences?
To me it's a bit like
Obama: Don, dont hire Flynn, he's a bit of a cnut
Trump: nah, O, I will hire him anyway
Flynn: proceeds to be a cnut
Trump: lock up Obama!
Or am I wrong?
To me it's a bit like
Obama: Don, dont hire Flynn, he's a bit of a cnut
Trump: nah, O, I will hire him anyway
Flynn: proceeds to be a cnut
Trump: lock up Obama!
Or am I wrong?
No one can really , not even Trump.
I think it's more to do with allegations about Obama & Biden trying to stitch up Flynn and some other cronies of the early Trump administration prior to the 2016 election. I believe the FBI were also trying to entrap him or get him to lie or something. Could be wrong though.
Can somebody also explain how the Trump re-election is supposed to depend on what happens in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania & Michigan?? How the hell is that supposed to work?
most us states don't matter because they always vote x or y
He’s trying to use a sham investigation by Barr to uncover some procedural mistakes made in the Flynn case or uncover who leaked the phone call that sunk him. Yell at the top of his lungs it’s proof of the conspiracy, even though it’d have nothing to do with Obama or even Biden. Make other vague accusations to the point no one can follow the truth.
https://www.justsecurity.org/70199/anticipating-phase-two-of-the-trumped-up-obamagate/
Oh, so they're like key swing states? But surely the margins can't be that narrow?
Because we use an archaic, imbecilic system to award the presidency.
The Electoral College voting system is just bizarre. How can you win the popular vote but lose the electoral college vote if you need the majority vote to be the state elector in the first place? Or am I not understanding it right?
Ah. So in most states, you need to win the majority in order to carry all the electors from that state. If you win the popular vote in every state you win all the electors.
The disconnect you're having is that, you can win a majority of the popular vote nationwide by winning the likes of California and Illinois and NY for example, however because the popular vote is not exactly proportionate to elector count, you could lose the elector count based on a few states going the other way. Which is why you hear a lot about pivotal/swing states which a candidate needs to win in order to take him/her past 270 electors needed to win the election.
Hillary won the popular vote as she carried states with high population.. she lost almost every swing state so she didn't win enough electors.
Yes, so as not to give states with more people undue influence in government. It avoids situations like Canada where election results are essentially decided in Toronto.
They matter. They just go in one direction most of the time.
It's a joke and 9 out of ten seems to favour the Republicans.
I think I understand what you mean, thanks. Is the make-up of the Senate and House separate to the makeup of the electoral college?
Wouldn't a UK-style system work where each city, area, district has a representative. All people in that area, city, district, whatever you want to call it votes for their representative. The one with the most votes wins. We have 650 MPs in the UK so obviously the party with most MPs voted into Parliament wins the election and the Leader of that Party becomes the Prime Minister.
It's just a simple 'first-past-the-post' system.
It is absolutely bizarre, but it has nothing to do with the two main parties (considering that the system predates both of them). Recently, it has favored GOP (both Bush and Trump lost the popular vote). In the past, hard to know. Kennedy quite likely lost the popular vote and still became president, for example.
Years of gerrymandering by the GOP has unquestionably played a part in it.
It is very different to Senate and House. For the Senate, each state has two senators, regardless of population. They get elected every six years. For the House, each county on a state has a representative and they get elected every two years, so the number of representatives a state has, is based (to a large degree) on their population. California has 49, while Wyoming has 1 (as extreme cases). For the House, some party might win more votes than the other party, and still get less representatives from that particular state (because how the counties are drawn, the gerrymandering phenomenon).
For the president election, each state has a number of delegates (sum of number of House representatives and the senators) but the delegates for most part are state based (only Maine and Rhode Island differ, if I am not mistaken). So, not being state based and being winner takes all make a very bizarre and undemocratic election. Some candidate might win by just a few votes and get all the delegates of that state (as it happened with Bush who got thirty something Florida delegates despite winning by 300 votes which was less than 0.1% difference). And this (like in the House) allows circumstances where the party with the most votes, does not win the election. Essentially it does not matter if you win a state by 0.1 points or by 50 points, it is all the same.
The House is closest to what you have in the UK, where each state is alloted a set of Congresspeople based on population. It's not perfect because each state gets at least 1 rep regardless of population (Wyoming should have 0.3 reps based on population), but it's the closest we have to representation based on one man one vote.
In the Senate, each state gets 2 senators regardless of population.
For the Electoral college, the amount of electors for each state is equal to the amount of Congresspeople + senators assigned to each state. So Wyoming for example would get 3 electors (1 congressman and 2 senators).
Electoral college is state based so gerrymandering does not play a role there. Maps have been drawn centuries ago.
Gerrymandering helps only when it comes to the House.
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the electoral college, surely? Except that they both deal with first past the post.
Another question:
If a state appointed a Democrat elector for example, why would he/she then vote for the Republican Presidential nominee? Wouldn't that be going against the wishes of the people who put him/her there in the first place?
That’ll teach me not to skim read.
That's... not a great analogy.
but really only the goals scored 2 min before and after the half-time counts towards the 3 points.
Why not?
You win California with 35M vote it still counts as 55 Vote
You win Ohio with 1 votes it'll still count as 18 vote
How many votes more you win by isn't important, what's important is you win just enough to settle the tie
Basically Flynn worked for Obama as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and then this stuff happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#Retirement_from_the_military
Bear in mind this was a few years before Trump's campaign.
Then when Trump runs he is hired as a campaign advisor and is actually in the running to be Trump's VP. During the campaign Flynn's private company is working as an agent for the Turkish government and has close ties to the Russians without registering any of this as foreign agent work as he was legally required to. He doesn't register this until after Trump's election. Lots of highly questionable shit comes out later such as:
After Trump's election Obama immediately warns Trump that Flynn is dodgy as hell and that he should keep him a million miles away from the nations secrets. Trump responds by immediately making him National Security Adviser, giving him massive access to the nations most classified secrets. A few months later Flynn finally registers his foreign agent status because the press have been kicking his ass over it.
Then it comes out that during the transition when Obama was putting sanctions on Russia for interfering with the election, Flynn had spoken to the Russian ambassador secretly and basically said 'No worries, those sanctions will be gone the second we're in office so no need to retaliate'. This call is picked up by the US spies who are of course constantly tapping the Russians phone calls.
The FBI then interview Flynn over the Russian call. He lies to the FBI and says they never spoke about sanctions. He repeats that lie to the Trump people including VP Pence, and those people publicly repeat the lie they’ve been told. The FBI then charge him with lying and Trump fires him for lying to Pence.
Trump then says he’s sad he had to fire him, because he didn’t even need to lie. What he did was fine anyway. This itself is a lie, what he did was technically illegal (although the law, the Logan Act has never actually be used to convict anyone before).
Then as the Mueller probe is all kicking off, the FBI then let Flynn cut a deal where he pleads guilty to the lying charge and agrees to help them with information re Trump-Russia and in return they let him slide on all the dodgy shit he and his son had been upto with the Turks.
He plays along and then later decides he’s still far enough up Trumps ass to try and get out of the lying charge too, probably in the hope that Trump will just pardon him anyway.
Seriously anyone trying to make out like Flynn is a victim in any way is just blowing partisan smoke. The guy got a great deal from the FBI, he should allegedly have served serious time along with his son for the Turkey stuff. They were supposedly offered $15m to deliver a Turkish dissident cleric living in the US to the Turks, to what would almost certainly have been his death.
It's not bizarre. It is a means to avoid the oppression by the majority. Doesn't mean it's perfect, but it does have its merit.
To give an example from my rural area. My village has around 2000 people living here. Due to our connection to good infrastructure our industry does have about 3-4 times as much working there. About 10 years ago we were forced to become one bigger "village" with the neighbors. The 3 other villages have around 25.000 people, yet my village provides around 80% of the local industry. What happens? Most money is spend elsewhere since there are no representatives in our local government from my village. To the point that the other villages have their sidewalks done, their schools renovated 2 times since then while outs didn't get a single one, etc.
The idea of the electoral vote is to prevent something like this. Just that instead of 4 villages it's 50(?) federal states with different interests. And to avoid the 10 most populated states ruling over the other 40 the electoral vote was put in place.
Especially since the more populated areas are usually cities and cities vote quite different to rural areas. Funnily enough it should be in the interest of the cities that the rural areas needs are being heard since rural areas can survive without cities, but it doesn't quite work the other way around (food supply for example).
Does that mean the electoral vote is without problems? Of course not. But to say it is just bizarre and useless is quite short-sighted.
Edit: also adding to the statement that the electoral vote only benefits Republicans the is simply wrong since it exchanges what is the cause and what is the result. It benefits the Republicans not because the system provides them an inherent advantage, but because it encourages one party to represent the interest of these lower populated states which so happens to be the Republicand being the ones who did that. If you go to a popular vote, they will care less for those areas as well and try to gain the same voterbase as the Democrats currently do.
Last edited:
Also of note is that 48 states have it in their laws that whomever wins the state popular vote receive all the EC votes available to that state. Not sure how much altering this system would have changed past results but wouldn't have changed 2016.
https://electoralvotemap.com/which-states-split-their-electoral-votes/
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2016
https://electoralvotemap.com/which-states-split-their-electoral-votes/
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2016
- Status