The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sky1981 said:
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
Click to expand...

How is that like a win = 3 points, though? Winning California is 55 "points", Ohio only 18 "points". Your analogy basically explains first past the post, except as two-party race (which is sometimes the case, but not always)
 
Last edited:
So @ our American caftards.........How is the election race heating up?
If the election was tomorrow would it be Donald by a mile?
 
Atze-Peng said:
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.
Click to expand...

So basically, the name United States of America is a bit of a misnomer. It is bizarre. I can see the thinking behind it but it's still a convoluted and outdated process.
 
nimic said:
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with the electoral college, surely? Except that they both deal with first past the post.
Click to expand...

Not gerrymandering per say, but it and other voter suppression measures (denying ex-felons the vote, voter ID measures, closing polls in blue areas) come from the same wretched place
 
RedPed said:
So basically, the name United States of America is a bit of a misnomer. It is bizarre. I can see the thinking behind it but it's still a convoluted and outdated process.
Click to expand...

With cities being bigger than in the past I don't really think it's outdated per se. Albeit I think it might be useful to give the electoral vote an overhaul so it is adapted to changed needs in modern times. Though with the big divide between the political sides it's very unlikely to happen.
 
Kentonio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great work! Completely get it.
 
Atze-Peng said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the electoral college has some merit (and I like your analogy), but winner takes it all is kinda absurd to me. One candidate wins 48%, the other wins 47.5% (which happens in every election for a couple of states), yet only one candidate gets electoral votes. So maybe, a better middle ground would have been to have an electoral system, but to be proportional to the votes won in the state. A bit like The House election, but without the gerrymandering (so just proportional in state level).
 
Atze-Peng said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe that was the original intent (also to preserve the interests of slaveholding states)... but the Electoral College in it's current state forces the will of the minority on the majority.
 
Atze-Peng said:
With cities being bigger than in the past I don't really think it's outdated per se. Albeit I think it might be useful to give the electoral vote an overhaul so it is adapted to changed needs in modern times. Though with the big divide between the political sides it's very unlikely to happen.
Click to expand...
Another thing that really irks me about US politics. Why do they constantly bleat on about the African-American vote, the Asian-American vote or the Latino vote etc. I may have asked this before. I know that racism is systemic in the US and essentially a part of it's national identity and structure but do they actually have policies specifically for black, asian and hispanic Americans? Why would you need to appeal to a certain demographic if your policies are supposed to benefit all Americans?
 
McGrathsipan said:
So @ our American caftards.........How is the election race heating up?
If the election was tomorrow would it be Donald by a mile?
Click to expand...
Likely Biden would have won (if the election happens tomorrow). As long as his advisers keep him from talking too much, he should be able to win considering Trump's abysmal management of the pandemic.

Covid-19 was a blessing for Biden. It both shows Trump for the incompetent twat he is, and it limits Biden from showing the incompetent politician (well, twat) he is.
 


fecking hell. There is spin then there is absolute fecking bollocks wrapped in total delusion.

Yet in the replies people are lapping it up. Expected but still unfathomable.

Trump taking credit for state Governors tha,t actually acted and are getting praise and good ratings whilst he continues to ignore his failure and avoid the mounting death toll is yet another new low.
 
Revan said:
Likely Biden would have won (if the election happens tomorrow). As long as his advisers keep him from talking too much, he should be able to win considering Trump's abysmal management of the pandemic.

Covid-19 was a blessing for Biden. It both shows Trump for the incompetent twat he is, and it limits Biden from showing the incompetent politician (well, twat) he is.
Click to expand...

Why can't USA produce a decent opponent for the biggest prick in the USAs history?
 
langster said:


fecking hell. There is spin then there is absolute fecking bollocks wrapped in total delusion.

Yet in the replies people are lapping it up. Expected but still unfathomable.

Trump taking credit for state Governors tha,t actually acted and are getting praise and good ratings whilst he continues to ignore his failure and avoid the mounting death toll is yet another new low.
Click to expand...


He's on a Wind up mission. He must know his days are numbered
 
Revan said:
I think the electoral college has some merit (and I like your analogy), but winner takes it all is kinda absurd to me. One candidate wins 48%, the other wins 47.5% (which happens in every election for a couple of states), yet only one candidate gets electoral votes. So maybe, a better middle ground would have been to have an electoral system, but to be proportional to the votes won in the state. A bit like The House election, but without the gerrymandering (so just proportional in state level).
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know if that was an oversight or purposefully create that way to benefit an essentially two-party system. The advantage of fewer parties of course is that decisions can be made quicker than let's say you have 5+ parties that all fight for different things.

Generally I would agree with you, though. Just saying that having more parties might not necessarily mean it will function better. Winner takes it all still encourages trying to have as many people (and electorates) agree with your policies as possible. Objectively speaking here in Germany we do not have absolute democracy, either. If you do not hit the 5% mark, you don't get into the parliament as a party. Yet, the parliament has 700 seats so you could give every seat to 1/700 of votes.

In addition obviously the USA has a very different background and logistical situation than european countries. Way bigger in area and population. Not naturally grown culturally - but sort of an "artifical" country - so cultural coherence isn't as common as within european countries. And even here we have issues (catalans, northern ireland, etc.). Which makes the country way harder to govern.


adexkola said:
Maybe that was the original intent (also to preserve the interests of slaveholding states)... but the Electoral College in it's current state forces the will of the minority on the majority.
Click to expand...

The "minority" is like 3-4% less, so not exactly a minority, but I get your point. That's the compromise being made with the electoral system. As I said, it has it's advantages and disadvantages.


RedPed said:
Another thing that really irks me about US politics. Why do they constantly bleat on about the African-American vote, the Asian-American vote or the Latino vote etc. I may have asked this before. I know that racism is systemic in the US and essentially a part of it's national identity and structure but do they actually have policies specifically for black, asian and hispanic Americans? Why would you need to appeal to a certain demographic if your policies are supposed to benefit all Americans?
Click to expand...

I am not american, so I don't know the exact extent of the racial issues, but the times I went over to visit family it wasn't as bad as it's being said. I think both parties try to politicise the racial tension to their favour and thus create it and give it more attention than actually is happening. Same with media. But obviously it isn't non-existent - especially within the context of slavery past and views being passed down generations (albeit I am not a fan of the reparations discussion, but that's a different topic altogether).
 
Atze-Peng said:
Well, I don't know if that was an oversight or purposefully create that way to benefit an essentially two-party system. The advantage of fewer parties of course is that decisions can be made quicker than let's say you have 5+ parties that all fight for different things.

Generally I would agree with you, though. Just saying that having more parties might not necessarily mean it will function better. Winner takes it all still encourages trying to have as many people (and electorates) agree with your policies as possible. Objectively speaking here in Germany we do not have absolute democracy, either. If you do not hit the 5% mark, you don't get into the parliament as a party. Yet, the parliament has 700 seats so you could give every seat to 1/700 of votes.

In addition obviously the USA has a very different background and logistical situation than european countries. Way bigger in area and population. Not naturally grown culturally - but sort of an "artifical" country - so cultural coherence isn't as common as within european countries. And even here we have issues (catalans, northern ireland, etc.). Which makes the country way harder to govern.




The "minority" is like 3-4% less, so not exactly a minority, but I get your point. That's the compromise being made with the electoral system. As I said, it has it's advantages and disadvantages.




I am not american, so I don't know the exact extent of the racial issues, but the times I went over to visit family it wasn't as bad as it's being said. I think both parties try to politicise the racial tension to their favour and thus create it and give it more attention than actually is happening. Same with media. But obviously it isn't non-existent - especially within the context of slavery past and views being passed down generations (albeit I am not a fan of the reparations discussion, but that's a different topic altogether).
Click to expand...
I'm glad you had a visit and didn't see racism. I assure you it's fecking everywhere here.
 
The so-called 'greatest nation on earth' with some of the most dumbest people on earth.



How can you protest against a virus??

Edit: No I'll take that back as we also have some of those dumb feckers too!
 
Last edited:
Atze-Peng said:
The "minority" is like 3-4% less, so not exactly a minority, but I get your point. That's the compromise being made with the electoral system. As I said, it has it's advantages and disadvantages.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point... It's just as concerning that Republicans in California (a minority) don't get a say, as Democrats in Idaho (a minority) don't get a say. The Electoral College doesn't fix those problems of the majority dominating the minority. It makes things worse by making the vote of a Democrat in a red state/Republican in a blue state pointless, and artificially narrows national contests down to battlegrounds in a few states. You have national party platforms being dictated by what an average voter in Wisconsin would like. Wtf?

A popular vote would force candidates to seek consensus across the political spectrum, ensuring that the voice of the minority does get heard (as suddenly their votes become important). And if you want to prevent legislation biased towards one side there are many ways to accomplish that (requiring a supermajority as opposed to a simple majority).
 
adexkola said:
You're missing the point... It's just as concerning that Republicans in California (a minority) don't get a say, as Democrats in Idaho (a minority) don't get a say. The Electoral College doesn't fix those problems of the majority dominating the minority. It makes things worse by making the vote of a Democrat in a red state/Republican in a blue state pointless, and artificially narrows national contests down to battlegrounds in a few states. You have national party platforms being dictated by what an average voter in Wisconsin would like. Wtf?

A popular vote would force candidates to seek consensus across the political spectrum, ensuring that the voice of the minority does get heard (as suddenly their votes become important). And if you want to prevent legislation biased towards one side there are many ways to accomplish that (requiring a supermajority as opposed to a simple majority).
Click to expand...
Which goes back to my original question as to why Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan should be so important as to determine the outcome of an election.
 
Interesting how that lady held a sign saying 'Coronavirus wont go away but our incomes will'.

Didn't their beloved leader say 'It'll go away, one day like a miracle it'll go away'.?
 
RedPed said:
The so-called 'greatest nation on earth' with some of the most dumbest people on earth.



How can you protest against a virus??

Edit: No I'll take that back as we also have some of those dumb feckers too!
Click to expand...


Only a matter of time where one of these guys gets shot, that'll be on Trumps small super duper hands.
 
RedPed said:
Which goes back to my original question as to why Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan should be so important as to determine the outcome of an election.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't. Because their demographics are almost evenly split along partisan lines (meaning they can go either way), and because they all have a sizeable contingent of electors, that's where the outsized importance comes from. Add Florida and Arizona (I'm forgetting one) to this mix.

Maybe once Texas turns blue (:lol: yeah right), the red side, realizing their doomed fate, will come forward with a better setup.
 
They should just get proportional representation and be done with it. That would also mean votes outside of the two main parties weren't "wasted" by default.
 
I can't believe what I just read in the Lancet. Have things got this bad and this broken in America? Just expecting them to start a nuclear war with someone now.
 
Kentonio said:
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.
Click to expand...
Does the presiding judge have any recourse to punish Flynn or is that completely out the window? Sullivan is no fan of Flynn & what he did & I believe Flynn is going to go back before him soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.