Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[The_Explorer]

Either way...

I wish we had better choices this election. There is stuff to like about Biden like I said, his negotiating skills as I pointed out is probably an easy pick. Even though republicans point out his age, he is still amazing at negotiating so its not much a factor to me. But it doesn't seem like both parties are putting out their best. Maybe I'm too weird on wanting hillary back as candidate, but dunno, guess a lot don't like her and she already said I believe she wouldn't try again. But there are a ton of other choices we could have had...I mean list is pretty big.

Never would have thought though we'd be both with the same pickings of biden and trump...again...

[McTraveller]

What do you mean, Trump "did nothing"?  His policies directly influenced current inflation. His policies and behavior further degraded the reputation of the USA. His populist policies did nothing to benefit the country (or world) as a whole.  He alienated and angered many groups. He did nothing to prevent injustices domestically or abroad.  He empowered people to act selfishly.  His tax policies were crazy and complicated (I now have to file at least 2 more forms than I did before the Trump policies).

These are not characteristics I want in a leader.  Biden has been a much more "nothing" President than Trump could ever hope to be (see what I did there).

Sometimes you really do indeed have to vote against something if there is nothing you want to vote for.

In 2024, barring something age-related or something really nefarious, basically this election really is going to be who gets voted against more than who is voted for.  It's sad, but it seems to be the reality.

[The_Explorer]

What do you mean, Trump "did nothing"?  His policies directly influenced current inflation. His policies and behavior further degraded the reputation of the USA. His populist policies did nothing to benefit the country (or world) as a whole.  He alienated and angered many groups. He did nothing to prevent injustices domestically or abroad.  He empowered people to act selfishly.  His tax policies were crazy and complicated (I now have to file at least 2 more forms than I did before the Trump policies).

These are not characteristics I want in a leader.  Biden has been a much more "nothing" President than Trump could ever hope to be (see what I did there).

Sometimes you really do indeed have to vote against something if there is nothing you want to vote for.

In 2024, barring something age-related or something really nefarious, basically this election really is going to be who gets voted against more than who is voted for.  It's sad, but it seems to be the reality.

I should have expanded more on the nothing part. I didn't make it too obvious. By nothing, he didn't actually accomplish anything for america. "nothing"...by that I mean nothing for me or americans. Like I said, he gave WHO to china...thats doing something. But actually doing nothing for the country. Maybe I'm using the nothing part wrong, but I still think he didn't really do anything.

But to me, he did nothing for the US. I dunno how to explain it more than that, but he did everything for russia and china, nothing for the US. So while he did stuff, for me he did nothing...maybe that doesn't make sense, but in my head it does lol

[Frumple]

"Nothing helpful" might be a bit more accurate, heh.

[The_Explorer]

"Nothing helpful" might be a bit more accurate, heh.

yup, thats more what I was looking for.

[McTraveller]

Whether intended or not, that sounds like pretty substantial spin to phrase "did actual damage" as "didn't do anything helpful."

[Egan_BW]

Don't be a coward and claim you're voting third party because you don't like either, just own up to the fact that doing so is a chickenshit way of getting to vote for fascism and the end of democracy entirely.

Maaaax, sometimes people actually believe in what they say they believe. I don't see anybody voting for someone other than trump if they want fascism, they'd just vote trump.

[Schmaven]

It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy: that a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote.  I'd be curious to see how many people actually do prefer a 3rd party candidate, yet vote only D or R because of that view.  Especially in this Trump-Biden rematch, I'd rather see just about anyone else.

[Egan_BW]

I mean, it's less of a self-fulfilling prophecy and more a consequence of how first past the post voting works. If a third party became viable enough to be an option, it would cease being a third party and become the first or second party, and one of the two parties we already had would become a third party. Which has happened before. You can support the greens or whoever, but unless the voting system changes, what you're pushing for is the greens to become one of the two options when the republican party decides to explode for good, or whatever.

[Starver]

But you have a pretty direct "indirect democracy" when it comes to President. You actually say who you want as President (to tell your state's actual Electors how they should allocate their votes in the State Electors' vote for who it should be), and this is separate from your perhaps simultaneous choice of Senator/Governor(s) which alters how two of the other compartments of government might (or might not) lean on your behalf. It's a bit of a Build-A-Bear method of trying to get your government to do as much (or as little) as you want to happen, and of course if your tendencies are in the minority then it's you who end up stuffed.

UK version of "indirect democracy" has you voting (theoretically[1]) for the MP... who (theoretically) is allied to a given party... the party (theoretically) decides who its best choice of leader is... the leader of the (theoretically) most supported party gets to be the PM... ...which has the very real possibility of giving a PM who has an actual superminority of public support but just happens to be the block perched at the top of a particularly wobbly jenga-tower[2] for as long as they can get away with it.[3]

Which system (of the two) is best? Not sure, but it certainly gives more practical choice (even of a low-choice field for top-dog) in the US.


[1] I've never "voted for/against” either the Prime Minister or anyone who might have become them, only bog-standard MPs/hopeful-MPs. I wish people would stop saying they do, when no such person was even named on their ballot. Your choice generally boils down to "vote for someone you trust, to prop up someone you might think is a Complete Bastard/Bitch[1a]" or "vote for ...whoever... as long as it is the one who will help prop up the Complete B who at least is your Complete B". But at least the one on the voting form is (theoretically) directly accountable to you, so maybe you can directly appeal to them to try to shift things further up the stack in ways that you'd be happier with, however crazily that needs to be accomplished.

[1a] Both terms used in an agendered way. As in "He's a bitch" and "She's a bastard" could definitely be views of various past examples.

[2] And (to continue the analogy), if removed, could shift the balance so that the whole tower falls down, so it's the 'job' of the layers beneath to make sure they quickly rearrange themselves so that the new top block is equally offset, or slightly more, to maintain the correct balance above the badly built stack further towards the base.

[3] Looking increasingly like the election will not be soon, here. Rishi thinks he[4]'d lose (as good an endorsement for Kier as anything else, if that's your kind of thing!) and so now we're waiting for either: a) Rishi deciding that he can win, and calling it quickly before the swing towards him does what swings tend to do and swing back, b) Rishi succumbing to the internal politics (whoever might swing that particular sword) and their successor feeling it necessary[5] to get the supposed public support made 'official', c) Rishi (or a successor) getting 'timed out' and having to run the gauntlet by the end of next January[6], despite everything.

[4] Or, to be consistent, "his party's candidates", etc.

[5] Not good odds on that, given how many changes of PM we have had since the last election. Four mid-term changes of leader across three General Election terms (with no changes at the intervening GEs themelves). You have to go back to the 1950s for anything approaching that record (three mid-term switches across three successive GEs with continuity, although Eden did at least call-and-win a GE in short order).

[6] Though in a "never eat the last slice of cake" way, that'll probably not be left to the absolute last minute, so more likely to be set in the lead up to Christmas (even/especially if they see a bleak campaign ahead of them, by that point in November/October/...) than immediately afterwards.

[Maximum Spin]

I definitely think the UK's parliamentary system is worse on several important properties. In fact, it seems like you basically have a two-party system anyway, with the lib dems mainly a factor in which side they decide to swing to. The proportional representation countries are even worse, because you don't even get to choose *people* there. I do think there's something to be said for the historical way the US did things, where the state governments, not the Congress (as would be the equivalent of the UK system), choose the President, but it was changed for a reason, ultimately.

When it comes to types of voting, though, IRV is the categorical worst of all. Nobody should ever use instant runoff. It can be shown mathematically to disobey important intuitive rules (monotonicity, for example) and also excludes third parties worse than plurality/FPTP. FPTP behaves fairly reasonably, all things considered, despite its bad academic reputation which isn't based on any evidence.

ETA: In fact, I should say, the main reason that America has a two-party system is because most people genuinely prefer one "major" party or the other over any third party that currently exists. Third-party voters are a Very Online Phenomenon. There are voting systems that specifically give smaller parties a mathematical leg up, like range voting, but that leg up mostly comes as a benefit of people outside the hard core not having heard of them. Is that really desirable, to prefer a candidate nobody hates because that candidate is a total cipher? I personally don't think so.

[Bumber]

Actually stuff WAS done under trump. Just stuff not in the interest of the US. He all but gave WHO to china. When he defunded WHO, china swooped in and was the major donator to WHO. Out of all the things he did, this is most blatant to me of a disaster of a president and one I like to point out the most...since even republicans care about that (at least some of them).

Can you give someone something they already had? Doesn't make sense to keep funding an organization that's already deferring to your adversary.

Defunding happened in April 2020. That's after these:
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-no-transmission-coronavirus-tweet-was-to-appease-china-guardian-2020-4
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/senior-who-adviser-appears-to-dodge-question-on-taiwans-covid-19-response

[anewaname]

The SCOTUS decision ensured that Trump would remain on the ballot. The SCOTUS decision did not disagree with the Colorado decision.

Considering the Colorado decision was to have Trump removed from the ballot and any votes cast for him tossed, it absolutely disagreed. It's the central issue.

I used the wrong word there... I intended "The SCOTUS decision did not disagree with the Colorado decision conclusion". I agree that the Colorado "decision" to remove Trump from the ballot was reversed by SCOTUS, but the Colorado "conclusion" that Trump was an insurrectionist and officer was not reversed. Trump clearly intended to bring violence to others for personal gain, and you have not acknowledged that...

===========

What position of mine are you trying to attack? What position of yours are you trying to defend?

Due process was followed in Colorado. The case was an attempt to remove him from the ballot and the defense failed to prove that Trump had not "engaged in an insurrection" and or that the sitting president is not an officer of the US. So, the 14th, which protects against abuses by state-level government against individuals, isn't an issue. In no way did Colorado need to wait for a federal charge and conviction against Trump to complete. The state has the right to adjudicate its own laws and their own constitution, just as the loser in the case has the right to appeal to the federal courts in an attempt to overturn the state courts.

If SCOTUS claims the sole authority to enforce 14A §3 lies at the federal level, it creates the obligation at the federal level for that authority to be exercised regarding the Colorado case. Colorado had the right to bring the case forward because the federal government did not.

SCOTUS ruled that Colorado has no right enforce the insurrection clause whatsoever. (This is mostly because Congress can waive the penalty after the election, however? I think they sidestepped ruling on the other issues, but they were clear that the 14th wasn't meant to give States more power after the war.) They didn't seem too favorable on the president being an "officer of the US", either.

The point I was making about "Colorado had the right to bring the case forward because the federal government did not" is similar to the point Texas is making with their new immigration law. Texas is saying that they have the right to enforce border law because the federal government is not. Are these both examples of a state taking action to enforce federal laws when the authority was already delegated to the federal level?

[Maximum Spin]

The point I was making about "Colorado had the right to bring the case forward because the federal government did not" is similar to the point Texas is making with their new immigration law. Texas is saying that they have the right to enforce border law because the federal government is not. Are these both examples of a state taking action to enforce federal laws when the authority was already delegated to the federal level?

No. Colorado did not have any right to bring the case forward because it was intruding on a power specifically provided to Congress by the Constitution, with no obligation on the part of Congress in any way created. Since Congress had made no law in any way providing for Donald Trump to be removed from any ballot, no state could act to enforce any such law, nor does any state have the power to make such law on its own (which, besides, Colorado never attempted to do, as the legislature was never involved). If Congress had made such a law, states would in fact be obliged to enforce it; similarly, if Congress has made laws providing for border enforcement, which they have, states have the responsibility to enforce them, just as the Executive does as well. The difference is that Texas is following the established law while Colorado was not.

ETA: By the way, in about an hour we get to find out how the economy collapses. Stay tuned!

[McTraveller]

ETA: By the way, in about an hour we get to find out how the economy collapses. Stay tuned!

Wait, what? If the economy "collapses" because the interest rates change (or don't) then I would be genuinely amazed.  Or was there something else on the horizon?