Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Quin_Dub

The continuing discussion of the Donald Trump Presidency.

Keep it civil and please note the charter before posting

Cody montana

I wonder will they reach a trade agreement with China today?

MrFresh

Could anyone say the same about the right?

Well if you were talking about the right, the centre circle would be white supremacism, nationalism and authoritarianism. People who are willing to use force to exclude and put down minorities. The unfortunate thing for the right is that the centre circle is pretty large.

looksee

So Trump has told Putin not to meddle in US elections. He can stand up at his rallies and say without lying (though why that would matter is another topic) that he told Putin not to meddle in US elections. But -

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/28/smirking-trump-jokes-to-putin-dont-meddle-in-us-election-g20

pixelburp

This is where the 'outsider' element grates so much: there's nothing wrong with someone unblemished by politics taking the centre stage, but the smart move is to surround yourself with the right team to lean on, to support & bolster your own inexperience. Trump has never done this - the "best people" he promised have never materialised, and his White House has haemorrhaged experts and aides - so you have a man incapable of understanding the subtleties and layers that come with politics on the biggest stage. He comes off like he's winging the Presidency.

Assuming it wasn't just an asinine joke - and it probably was - Trump likely DOES think that simply telling Putin to cut it out, it'll happen; that by chatting to Kim Jon Un and telling them to stop the nukes, they'll do this; that he only need descend into a room and direct something that it happens; he spent his life in a bubble of Yes Men, and manufacturing a myth of success and primacy by sheer dint of his name & authority.

We saw this when he barged through the President of Estonia a year or so back. We saw it again during the disastrous Obamacare repeal where he couldn't / wouldn't expend shoe leather to whip votes and horse-trade (literally ranting from the sidelines at the Rep. party). He needs to be the showman, maintaining the artifice of the Man in Control, but doesn't seem to possess the followthrough to Get Stuff Done. Politics is sitting in rooms, talking it out, all night if you have to - this being precisely how we got eventual peace in Northern Ireland. Trump neither knows nor cares that this is how it's done.

TomOnBoard

The second night of the Democratic debates was a fiery and noisy one. Lots of losers and only one clear winner. Kamala Harris brought it!

serfboard

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Lots of losers and only one clear winner. Kamala Harris brought it!

Kamala Harris is a very bright individual and a very good debater as you would expect from someone who is a qualified lawyer, a former District Attorney of San Francisco and a former Attorney General of California. I would expect her to stay in the Democratic primary race for a long time.

Unfortunately she's also a corporatist "centrist", ordained by those in The Hamptons, and in the same vein as Hillary Clinton. If she is the Democrats nominee in 2020, they will lose. The Rust Belt will not vote for someone like her, just as they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton either.

rossie1977

CNN last night showed where they think various candidates sit on political scale, not sure I agree but interesting none the less

FatherTed

rossie1977 wrote: »

CNN last night showed where they think various candidates sit on political scale, not sure I agree but interesting none the less

No Bernie or is he just off the charts?

AbusesToilets

From Manic

Did they really rule in such a manner?

I've seen lots of people saying it does, but nobody on the legal blogs, nor in the opinion itself saying it does.

Here's the bottom line. If the court ruled that Gerrymandering were legal, all subordinate courts, including the State courts, would have to follow that ruling. That is not what SCOTUS ruled.

SCOTUS simply ruled that the private citizen does not have standing to challenge state-level gerrymandering in federal court. It is a procedural issue, and does not say one thing about the legitimacy of gerrymandering one way or the other.

If you read a lot of cases, you'll see that the matter of standing is a commonly argued affair. A decision on the grounds of standing is not a decision on the merits.

The other distinction which annoys the hell out of me is when SCOTUS declines review, it doesn't mean that they are ruling anything at all. It just leaves the lower court case in place with effect of precedence only within that court's jurisdiction.

I think it was a naked cop out by the SC. As Kagan said in her dissent, how can Roberts say that they can't decide on cases related to gerrymandering but lower courts can? It's nonsense

Beyond that, it is a palpably undemocratic concept and clearly violates the spirit of the Equal Rights and Voting Rights legislation. It's like the basic test for determining if an argument is bigoted; change man to woman, white to black, straight to gay, and see how a sentence reads. If it's illegal to discriminate when drawing electoral districts on the basis of race, gender or religion, why would it be permissible to do so on the basis of political belief?

Christy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

From Manic



I think it was a naked cop out by the SC. As Kagan said in her dissent, how can Roberts say that they can't decide on cases related to gerrymandering but lower courts can? It's nonsense

Beyond that, it is a palpably undemocratic concept and clearly violates the spirit of the Equal Rights and Voting Rights legislation. It's like the basic test for determining if an argument is bigoted; change man to woman, white to black, straight to gay, and see how a sentence reads. If it's illegal to discriminate when drawing electoral districts on the basis of race, gender or religion, why would it be permissible to do so on the basis of political belief?

Whether or not the SC is the place for this to be dealt with it isn't being dealt with anywhere.

Until then it is a big block for them to become a mature democracy. It needs to be dealt with.

dr.fuzzenstein

serfboard wrote: »

Kamala Harris is a very bright individual and a very good debater as you would expect from someone who is a qualified lawyer, a former District Attorney of San Francisco and a former Attorney General of California. I would expect her to stay in the Democratic primary race for a long time.

Unfortunately she's also a corporatist "centrist", ordained by those in The Hamptons, and in the same vein as Hillary Clinton. If she is the Democrats nominee in 2020, they will lose. The Rust Belt will not vote for someone like her, just as they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton either.

Funny thing selecting a democratic candidate. Has to be all things to all people, brilliant, not too left, erudite, charming, witty and at least as charismatic as JFK.
Republicans just need something that looks vaguely human, can somehow stand upright, walk without dragging their knuckles too much and be able to string three words together, though that last one is kind of optional.
It's almost, call me crazy, and this is only a hunch, as if there is a different set of standards here...

AbusesToilets

Christy42 wrote: »

Whether or not the SC is the place for this to be dealt with it isn't being dealt with anywhere.

Until then it is a big block for them to become a mature democracy. It needs to be dealt with.

It's ludicrous to think that State legislatures, that are overwhelmingly gerrymandered, are going to solve the problem. Look at NC, possibly one the most egregious examples in the country. You have a State representative openly saying that he regrets they couldn't figure out a way to further reduce the number of Democrats elected. In a state that's roughly 50/50 split, Republicans outnumber Dems, 10 to 3.

TomOnBoard

AbusesToilets wrote: »

In a state that's roughly 50/50 split, Republicans outnumber Dems, 10 to 3.

I'm confused by this

AbusesToilets

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm confused by this

Demographically, the number of Democrats vs Republicans statewide is split 50/50. However, their seats for the House are 10-3 in favor of Republicans, due to gerrymandering. By contrast they've elected 2 Democratic Governors and a democratic Senator in the past 10yrs, iirc.

Dytalus

I'd like to address a point made shortly before the last thread got closed down re: the Electoral College and Trump's validity (as well as strategies for beating him in the 202 election).

I really can't believe that you guys consider yourselves political commentators, and in the same breath, dismiss the electoral college.

Argue the percentages? Sure.
Argue that states shouldn't have levels of representation bigger than their population? Naive.

The US is a federation of states. This notion that that doesn't work anymore because Trump got elected is so short-sighted. The country is the width of Western Europe, and because of one election, people are calling for a "most popular wins" system. What happened to all your support for EU negligibles like what Walloons did in Belgium? Smaller pieces in the big picture having a say.. Ireland having the support of the EU in Brexit negotiations because our comparatively small population is negated by our membership?

How would that play out in the coming decades? Where the majority live on the coastlines.. Would that be fair to the people in the middle.. Of course it wouldn't. Ye know that.

There are people willing to strip away centuries of governmental systems because "one got through the net". Trump won't even be talked about in a decade or two but angry people would choose to change everything now, and for what, a ridiculous system where politics would be centered on a few coastal states. Removing a system where central states can vote and be counted would be worse than anything Trump has done so far.

In Europe, we see carnage down the road because of Brexit, but we're not arguing for monumental change. Somehow, Europeans addicted to US politics, are arguing for more change there than here.

I think this is a fundamental problem the US does need to address, but Ads By Google had a point. One of my greatest criticisms of Clinton (or rather, the establishment Democrats) in 2016 was their appearance of disdain or apathy towards the rural states. Whether that disdain for rural 'hicks' was real or imagined is irrelevant - if the people think a candidate is ignoring them, or thinks lowly of them, they'll vote against them. The Democrats will need to focus on the choice states if they want to win.

Whether or not the President is supposed to represent the people or the states is largely, I'd wager, a matter of opinion. In theory the US is a federation of states, which leans towards the 'he should represent the states' argument (and therefore, nominally, in favour of the electoral college). In practice it's very much a single nation, in ways the EU is not (and likely never will be) which makes Ads' comparison a little unwarranted, which brings the pendulum back over to "he should represent the people". Personally I see the rationale in both arguments.

Fundamentally, though, the Electoral College is very greatly flawed regardless of which side of the argument you come down on. If it's supposed to protect the smaller, less populated states (and, by corollary the less urban populations) it doesn't really achieve that either. Western economies are swinging much more towards service-based economies, which in turn drives urbanisation. Dense cities are also easier to manage with regards to climate policies (shorter distances, less private transport usage, etc), and I can see a greater push towards urbanisation by nations looking to combat climate change (which, hopefully, the US will start doing again in the future). As rural populations migrate to urban, coastal regions, the House of Representatives gets shifted to accommodate population densities - which is going to slowly but surely bleed out the middle states of Electoral votes. Sure, they'll keep their senator based Votes but...after that? And if the trend of urban areas growing increasingly more liberal compared to rural states continues well...it could well sound the death knell of conservative politics of any kind in the US.

Plus there's the problem of the EC not actually guaranteeing that the winner in a state wins the states EC votes. It's never happened (AFAIK), that a Elector doesn't vote on what his state decides, but the mere fact that it can happen is kind of an affront to the idea of democracy.

"Those buffoons made the wrong choice. I know better."

Extremely unlikely? Certainly. But possible. And a gross failing of a country that styles itself as something like Democracy Incarnate.

Could it be replaced by something akin to the EU's Qualified Majority requirement (used for voting on certain topics at a Council level)? A President should win some majority of the States, alongside a substantial amount of the population (in the EU it's 55% of Member States representing 65% of the population). That should keep the idea of a President representing the states while also ensuring he has a mandate from the people. (The EU figures wouldn't work, because you can easily have a President that doesn't meet both criteria and you can't just...not have a President. There'd be balancing required).

I dunno. Just spitballing. I definitely think the Electoral College as it is is grossly, hilariously, flawed - but Ads has a point that if the US truly wants to remain a union of individual states it can't fall back to outright popular vote.

Still, to get back to the main matter at hand (ie: Trump as President), the Dems really need to find someone who can get them the votes where it counts. Unfortunately for most of the US population...only the swing states really count. If the Dems can't win them over, the popular vote won't mean jack for them.

I can't see Trump winning again. His ratings have been catastrophically low during his presidency, and if the Dems can grow courageous enough to run a candidate with strong, motivating ideals (ie, not Biden) they can get their supporters to flock to the polls.

TomOnBoard

AbusesToilets wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm confused by this

Demographically, the number of Democrats vs Republicans statewide is split 50/50. However, their seats for the House are 10-3 in favor of Republicans, due to gerrymandering. By contrast they've elected 2 Democratic Governors and a democratic Senator in the past 10yrs, iirc.

Jeez, a 10-3 representation is crazy alright if voters are split near equally state-wide as between Reps & Dems. If I was a Democrat, I'd be rightly pissed off.

The thing that gets me is that the US was born out of a War of Independence from the British Empire, that originated from a belief that there should be no taxation without representation. And in cases like in NC, assuming taxation is spread across the population fairly equally ( a big assumption I know), there is a clear case of half the population being taxed with entirely inadequate representation.

Christy42

Dytalus wrote: »

I'd like to address a point made shortly before the last thread got closed down re: the Electoral College and Trump's validity (as well as strategies for beating him in the 202 election).



I think this is a fundamental problem the US does need to address, but Ads By Google had a point. One of my greatest criticisms of Clinton (or rather, the establishment Democrats) in 2016 was their appearance of disdain or apathy towards the rural states. Whether that disdain for rural 'hicks' was real or imagined is irrelevant - if the people think a candidate is ignoring them, or thinks lowly of them, they'll vote against them. The Democrats will need to focus on the choice states if they want to win.

Whether or not the President is supposed to represent the people or the states is largely, I'd wager, a matter of opinion. In theory the US is a federation of states, which leans towards the 'he should represent the states' argument (and therefore, nominally, in favour of the electoral college). In practice it's very much a single nation, in ways the EU is not (and likely never will be) which makes Ads' comparison a little unwarranted, which brings the pendulum back over to "he should represent the people". Personally I see the rationale in both arguments.

Fundamentally, though, the Electoral College is very greatly flawed regardless of which side of the argument you come down on. If it's supposed to protect the smaller, less populated states (and, by corollary the less urban populations) it doesn't really achieve that either. Western economies are swinging much more towards service-based economies, which in turn drives urbanisation. Dense cities are also easier to manage with regards to climate policies (shorter distances, less private transport usage, etc), and I can see a greater push towards urbanisation by nations looking to combat climate change (which, hopefully, the US will start doing again in the future). As rural populations migrate to urban, coastal regions, the House of Representatives gets shifted to accommodate population densities - which is going to slowly but surely bleed out the middle states of Electoral votes. Sure, they'll keep their senator based Votes but...after that? And if the trend of urban areas growing increasingly more liberal compared to rural states continues well...it could well sound the death knell of conservative politics of any kind in the US.

Plus there's the problem of the EC not actually guaranteeing that the winner in a state wins the states EC votes. It's never happened (AFAIK), that a Elector doesn't vote on what his state decides, but the mere fact that it can happen is kind of an affront to the idea of democracy.

"Those buffoons made the wrong choice. I know better."

Extremely unlikely? Certainly. But possible. And a gross failing of a country that styles itself as something like Democracy Incarnate.

Could it be replaced by something akin to the EU's Qualified Majority requirement (used for voting on certain topics at a Council level)? A President should win some majority of the States, alongside a substantial amount of the population (in the EU it's 55% of Member States representing 65% of the population). That should keep the idea of a President representing the states while also ensuring he has a mandate from the people. (The EU figures wouldn't work, because you can easily have a President that doesn't meet both criteria and you can't just...not have a President. There'd be balancing required).

I dunno. Just spitballing. I definitely think the Electoral College as it is is grossly, hilariously, flawed - but Ads has a point that if the US truly wants to remain a union of individual states it can't fall back to outright popular vote.

Still, to get back to the main matter at hand (ie: Trump as President), the Dems really need to find someone who can get them the votes where it counts. Unfortunately for most of the US population...only the swing states really count. If the Dems can't win them over, the popular vote won't mean jack for them.

I can't see Trump winning again. His ratings have been catastrophically low during his presidency, and if the Dems can grow courageous enough to run a candidate with strong, motivating ideals (ie, not Biden) they can get their supporters to flock to the polls.

I think a proportional system could work well. So if you get 60% of the vote in a state you get 60% of their states EC votes (rounded in some fashion). Smaller states can keep their over representation in it but it means you can't ignore California and the like.

A lot of issues of this and the gerrymandering is simply that the US didn't have a lot of models to copy from at the time. The founding father's did great work but many in the US don't seem to understand they didn't have perfect foresight. Life has moved on, countries have developed new systems for this. Not perfect but certainly improvements.

I mean the person in charge of elections in Georgia went for election in Georgia which is a ridiculous thing to have happen and is something that needs updating.

PropJoe10

Joking around with Putin in front of the world about election meddling is just beyond a joke now. Shows what kind of person that you're dealing with - Trump hasn't the slightest interest in the sanctity of the electoral system. Quite happy to throw all that under the bus as long as he wins in 2020.

Harry Palmr

Feels like the Trump and Putin threads should be merged as they pretty much have.

marno21

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Joking around with Putin in front of the world about election meddling is just beyond a joke now. Shows what kind of person that you're dealing with - Trump hasn't the slightest interest in the sanctity of the electoral system. Quite happy to throw all that under the bus as long as he wins in 2020.

And the fact that a large proportion of the country are defending this behaviour and when questioned trot out some bull**** about Hillary's emails or Obama not loving America is worse.

Dog Man Star

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Joking around with Putin in front of the world about election meddling is just beyond a joke now. Shows what kind of person that you're dealing with - Trump hasn't the slightest interest in the sanctity of the electoral system. Quite happy to throw all that under the bus as long as he wins in 2020.

I'm sure the American people get this now. The majority are not stupid. As I said before, Trump will be defeated by a landslide in November next year. Everyone who voted for Trump in November 2016 will vote for him again, but the electorate will beat records, as it did in 2018. Trump will be beaten by some distance, no matter who the Democratic candidate.

I feel that Kamala Harris may win the primary and, although Warren is my choice, I hope Harris does. Trump will be beaten by a huge margin, no question. He has the lowest approval ratings since ratings began, Clinton beat him by 3,000,000 votes. He is done for, no question.

What happens after that is anyone's guess. Of course he will refuse to admit defeat, but I predict his bubble will burst almost immediately and he will rage like a toddler in a supermarket. If he goes to full trial and is jailed, all the better. There is no chance he will win re-election, not a hope in hell.

What's more, it will be decades before the Republicans are voted back in. The white majority becomes a minority mid 2020/30, so this could be the last white supremacists clutch on the US. A fitting one, if it was Trump.

Putin's "Liberalism is dead" remarks yesterday marry up to the realisation that the western world is facing. Oh how Putin wishes it were true, but it isn't. The right wing populist movement is a flash in the pan, and in the US will be buried within 18 months. Putin still has a dictatorship in Russia, but even that is temporary. His time may be coming to an untimely end too. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48674705

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumours of the death of liberal progression have been greatly exaggerated.

Christy42

Dog Man Star wrote: »

I'm sure the American people get this now. The majority are not stupid. As I said before, Trump will be defeated by a landslide in November next year. Everyone who voted for Trump in November 2016 will vote for him again, but the electorate will beat records, as it did in 2018. Trump will be beaten by some distance, no matter who the Democratic candidate.

I feel that Kamala Harris may win the primary and, although Warren is my choice, I hope Harris does. Trump will be beaten by a huge margin, no question. He has the lowest approval ratings since ratings began, Clinton beat him by 3,000,000 votes. He is done for, no question.

What happens after that is anyone's guess. Of course he will refuse to admit defeat, but I predict his bubble will burst almost immediately and he will rage like a toddler in a supermarket. If he goes to full trial and is jailed, all the better. There is no chance he will win re-election, not a hope in hell.

What's more, it will be decades before the Republicans are voted back in. The white majority becomes a minority mid 2020/30, so this could be the last white supremacists clutch on the US. A fitting one, if it was Trump.

Putin's "Liberalism is dead" remarks yesterday marry up to the realisation that the western world is facing. Oh how Putin wishes it were true, but it isn't. The right wing populist movement is a flash in the pan, and in the US will be buried within 18 months. Putin still has a dictatorship in Russia, but even that is temporary. His time may be coming to an untimely end too. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48674705

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumours of the death of liberal progression have been greatly exaggerated.[motivatedPutin is saying things not because he believes them but because saying them serves a purpose. It is useful propaganda for hi. To say these things though.

I also would not count Trump dead yet. His fan base is impressively motivated and they just need to jeep the vote down overall. The Republicans are good at that and they will have a smear campaign ready for the democratic winner. We already had someone here declaring that native american thing was the worst thing ever and how terrible Warren was because of it. They will find a single talking about and respond to everything with it. Get ready for the emails part2.

I feel like it is likely he will go but the above strategy will give him a chance in swing states and they are all that counts.

peddlelies

I don't see how anyone can have a decent discussion here or back and fourth with all these broad white supremacist comments towards those who don't align politically, two of which coming in the last 20 posts.

Igotadose

Christy42 wrote: »

I also would not count Trump dead yet. His fan base is impressively motivated and they just need to jeep the vote down overall. The Republicans are good at that and they will have a smear campaign ready for the democratic winner. We already had someone here declaring that native american thing was the worst thing ever and how terrible Warren was because of it. They will find a single talking about and respond to everything with it. Get ready for the emails part2.

I feel like it is likely he will go but the above strategy will give him a chance in swing states and they are all that counts.

It'd be insane to count him out before 4 November 2020 (day after election day.) Overconfidence cost the world in 2016. Remember how Bush was going to lose to Kerry?

duploelabs

Dog Man Star wrote: »

I'm sure the American people get this now. The majority are not stupid. As I said before, Trump will be defeated by a landslide in November next year. Everyone who voted for Trump in November 2016 will vote for him again, but the electorate will beat records, as it did in 2018. Trump will be beaten by some distance, no matter who the Democratic candidate.

I feel that Kamala Harris may win the primary and, although Warren is my choice, I hope Harris does. Trump will be beaten by a huge margin, no question. He has the lowest approval ratings since ratings began, Clinton beat him by 3,000,000 votes. He is done for, no question.

What happens after that is anyone's guess. Of course he will refuse to admit defeat, but I predict his bubble will burst almost immediately and he will rage like a toddler in a supermarket. If he goes to full trial and is jailed, all the better. There is no chance he will win re-election, not a hope in hell.

What's more, it will be decades before the Republicans are voted back in. The white majority becomes a minority mid 2020/30, so this could be the last white supremacists clutch on the US. A fitting one, if it was Trump.

Putin's "Liberalism is dead" remarks yesterday marry up to the realisation that the western world is facing. Oh how Putin wishes it were true, but it isn't. The right wing populist movement is a flash in the pan, and in the US will be buried within 18 months. Putin still has a dictatorship in Russia, but even that is temporary. His time may be coming to an untimely end too. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48674705

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumours of the death of liberal progression have been greatly exaggerated.

It's also worth noting at the same summit, that Trump also said with Putin that they should 'get rid' of Journalists

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-jokes-to-putin-they-should-get-rid-of-journalists

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can have a decent discussion here or back and fourth with all these broad white supremacist comments towards those who don't align politically, two of which coming in the last 20 posts.

If you've a problem with the content of the posts, just report them

rossie1977

FatherTed wrote: »

No Bernie or is he just off the charts?

They showed it but I can't find image online. Bernie I think was 15 on scale, Biden 70.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

You and MrFresh would want to cop yourselves on with your broad white supremacist comments towards those who don't align with you politically if you want to have any semblance of decent discussion here. We're not fit for the gulags just yet.

Suggest you refer your concerns to a mod, tbh.

peddlelies

(reported said posts don't want to drag off topic).

I was very confident Biden would get the nomination and walk it in 2020 but I'm not anymore after last night. Age has to be a factor there, he didn't seem sharp at all. There was one question where he began mumbling then prematurely told the moderator his time was up. Harris on an intellectual and wits level is miles ahead of him and it showed last night, she nailed him on a few occasions.

A Harris, Trump battle would be fairly intriguing. If she won the nomination, I'd be curious to see if she throws the dirt back in the same weight once Trump starts the inevitable attacks on her.

peddlelies

peddlelies wrote: »

(reported said posts don't want to drag off topic).

I was very confident Biden would get the nomination and walk it in 2020 but I'm not anymore after last night. Age has to be a factor there, he didn't seem sharp at all. There was one question where he began mumbling then prematurely told the moderator his time was up. Harris on an intellectual and wits level is miles ahead of him and it showed last night, she nailed him on a few occasions.

A Harris, Trump battle would be fairly intriguing. If she won the nomination, I'd be curious to see if she throws the dirt back in the same weight once Trump starts the inevitable attacks on her.

I don't believe Trump is capable of taking part in a debate. If he participates it will be nothing but childish insults and silly nicknames. Nothing of substance.

PropJoe10

Dog Man Star wrote: »

I'm sure the American people get this now. The majority are not stupid. As I said before, Trump will be defeated by a landslide in November next year. Everyone who voted for Trump in November 2016 will vote for him again, but the electorate will beat records, as it did in 2018. Trump will be beaten by some distance, no matter who the Democratic candidate.

I feel that Kamala Harris may win the primary and, although Warren is my choice, I hope Harris does. Trump will be beaten by a huge margin, no question. He has the lowest approval ratings since ratings began, Clinton beat him by 3,000,000 votes. He is done for, no question.

What happens after that is anyone's guess. Of course he will refuse to admit defeat, but I predict his bubble will burst almost immediately and he will rage like a toddler in a supermarket. If he goes to full trial and is jailed, all the better. There is no chance he will win re-election, not a hope in hell.

What's more, it will be decades before the Republicans are voted back in. The white majority becomes a minority mid 2020/30, so this could be the last white supremacists clutch on the US. A fitting one, if it was Trump.

Putin's "Liberalism is dead" remarks yesterday marry up to the realisation that the western world is facing. Oh how Putin wishes it were true, but it isn't. The right wing populist movement is a flash in the pan, and in the US will be buried within 18 months. Putin still has a dictatorship in Russia, but even that is temporary. His time may be coming to an untimely end too. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48674705

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumours of the death of liberal progression have been greatly exaggerated.

I wouldnt be nearly so confident. I do think that the stars aligned in a total fluke situation in 2016 to get him elected, but I don't think the Dems have been particularly coherent so far in getting a concrete message out that will appeal to the mid-west working class swing state areas. I'm hoping that changes as the Democratic field narrows (far too many candidates at the moment) but Trump just seems to have this amazing ability to keep on trucking no matter what he says or no matter what happens.

I also have concerns that he won't be willing to give up the WH if he narrowly loses, but that's another discussion entirely.

peddlelies

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe Trump is capable of taking part in a debate. If he participates it will be nothing but childish insults and silly nicknames. Nothing of substance.

His performance in the first debate in 2016 was a terrible embarrassment. He didn't lift a finger to prepare, that's how big his ego is. Second and third he did a little better after getting some coaching from people like Farage but overall not good either, he managed to rattle off some rehearsed soundbites here and there which was a big step up from the first debate but his inability to hit killer blows or clearly explain his political stances still prevailed. ( Ignoring the obvious "you'd be in jail" quip ).

Trump is a strange cat, there's audio clips of him in private where he sounds like a normal person ( no, not referring to the pussytape ), but when he answers questions in interviews his level of coherency and knowledge of the English language comes across as akin to a 10 year old. I genuinely have no idea what's going on there, but it's embarrassing at times.

I think the biggest word he came up with lately was "proportionate", I'd say he's fairly proud of that one.

Dog Man Star

I'm confused as to why some Dems are arguing against an option of private health insurance. Would appreciate an explanation of their argument against government health insurance to exist alongside private health insurance.

I live in Australia. Both exist together very simply. Likewise when I lived in the UK. Eliminating private health seems daft?

Dog Man Star

peddlelies wrote: »

(reported said posts don't want to drag off topic).

I was very confident Biden would get the nomination and walk it in 2020 but I'm not anymore after last night. Age has to be a factor there, he didn't seem sharp at all. There was one question where he began mumbling then prematurely told the moderator his time was up. Harris on an intellectual and wits level is miles ahead of him and it showed last night, she nailed him on a few occasions.

A Harris, Trump battle would be fairly intriguing. If she won the nomination, I'd be curious to see if she throws the dirt back in the same weight once Trump starts the inevitable attacks on her.

Not for a minute did I think Biden would win the nomination.

Dog Man Star

There is no guarantee that Trump will take part in a debate with the Democrat Nominee, and at this time I am 99% certain he will not. He will throw **** at them, degrade them, lie about them, but I am certain he will not go head to head. The optics of that will destroy him, and he knows that.

Kamala Harris needs to be the Democrats' nomination. She will tear him to bits on or off the record.

Harris will tear Putin to bits too.

PropJoe10

Dog Man Star wrote: »

There is no guarantee that Trump will take part in a debate with the Democrat Nominee, and at this time I am 99% certain he will not. He will throw **** at them, degrade them, lie about them, but I am certain he will not go head to head. The optics of that will destroy him, and he knows that.

Kamala Harris needs to be the Democrats' nomination. She will tear him to bits on or off the record.

Yeah, Harris would destroy him in a debate, no way he'd take that risk. I'd love to see Buttigieg taking him on as well. Been very impressed with him and Harris, whereas Biden and Sanders really seemed like yesterday's news in yesterday's debate.

peddlelies

Dog Man Star wrote: »

There is no guarantee that Trump will take part in a debate with the Democrat Nominee, and at this time I am 99% certain he will not.

I'm sure the bookies would love to give you some custom. Your previous few 100% and 99% assertions are meaningless and have no weight behind them at all. It's wild speculation and something you'll never be held accountable for so it's very easy to say such things.

Brian?

Dog Man Star wrote: »

I'm confused as to why some Dems are arguing against an option of private health insurance. Would appreciate an explanation of their argument against government health insurance to exist alongside private health insurance.

I live in Australia. Both exist together very simply. Likewise when I lived in the UK. Eliminating private health seems daft?

And private only works extremely well in the Netherlands where I live.

I’ve lived in the states and the healthcare costs are exorbitant. Luckily my job paid 100% of my health insurance, which is rare. It’s the lack of regulation and absence of a safety net that have caused a broken system.

BluePlanet

Dog Man Star wrote: »

I'm confused as to why some Dems are arguing against an option of private health insurance. Would appreciate an explanation of their argument against government health insurance to exist alongside private health insurance.

I live in Australia. Both exist together very simply. Likewise when I lived in the UK. Eliminating private health seems daft?

Off the top of my head:
It will create a 2 track system.
Private Insurance in the fast lane, Medicare in the slow lane.

Since Medicare will pay less for procedures than Private Insurers, for-profit hospitals will be inclined to grow their revenue by concentrating their services toward the private, while dragging their feet on the public patients.
It's really not that different than the disruption we see here in the HSE.
Private beds vs public ward.

Add-in the massive wealth disparity that exists in the US and i can imagine the same thing exaggerated again.

For-Profit hospitals could also use this model to try and tank support for the public option.

Netherlands, and Germany i believe, stipulate in law that the basic private health insurance plans must operate on a non-profit basis. Additionally their governments also set prices on procedures and regulate the cost of meds.
Things like that will not be on offer in USA.

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

Whether or not the SC is the place for this to be dealt with it isn't being dealt with anywhere.

We don't know that. Common Cause v Lewis is schedule to be heard in the North Carolina courts two weeks from today. It was only filed in November of 2018, so for much of the duration of the federal case, they had not even tried the State court option.

marno21

https://twitter.com/jenniferjjacobs/status/1144523828921372672

I genuinely am curious as to how this line of behavior contributes to Making America Great Again.

Kimsang

"Just imagine you have some concentric circles. You have at the center[fundamentalist group],Outside of them[moderate group] but they want to work within the system. They want to change governments, they want to use democracy against itself. Those two circles arguably are % of entire group"-Sam Harris

Kimsang: Could anyone say the same about the right?

MrFresh wrote: »

Well if you were talking about the right, the centre circle would be white supremacism, nationalism and authoritarianism. People who are willing to use force to exclude and put down minorities. The unfortunate thing for the right is that the centre circle is pretty large.

I agree with the centre-circle of your analogy of the right, although I would argue its absolutely tiny and it seems you agree there is no circle around that? I don't see any mainstream right-wing media that endoreses nazis, authoritarianism or supremacism and they are quick to condone violence. Nationalism is not considered extreme right.

Let's really put this to the test;
I can set you(or anyone else) a way to prove me wrong. Find mainstream right-wing media that doesn't denounce the extremists of the right in a very serious way.
Extremism can include violence or what is alluded to earlier.
Please 'dog-whistling' doesn't count, as proved earlier in the thread.
What I hope to prove is that there is a hysteria from the left that nazis et al, are condoned, when in fact they are not.

Similar related challenge:
Find mainstream left-wing media that opposes the fundamentalists of the left. This can include equality of outcome, anything related to antifa, milkshaking or shutting down of debates/talks at universities. I believe every article you find will 'let the reader decide' and more usually make light of the matter and anyone who opposes these ideologies at best would be called a libertarian more usually far right influencer/far-right/racists/etc..
Or maybe I will be proved wrong, in which case I promise to shut up about this matter

"It isn't really one left. There is an ascendant orthodoxy on the left that is very troubling. There is concentrated mirror image of that on the far right, and both of these things are to be feared. The problem though is when you speak out on a college campus from a perspective on the left that doesn't fit this orthodoxy you are immediately categorized as on the right. Which makes it look as if the left is monolithic and all shares this opinion, which is not the case."

-Brett Weinstein testifying to congress about Everygreen State Riots

"I didn't know what to do with that level of hostility"

"We have to be able to criticize bad ideas"

-Sam Harris

Regarding my post about the electoral college which was brought up again in this new thread two pages back, I'd like to add that the UK voting for Brexit is a perfect example of what diverse countries without electoral college-type systems can lead to.

The UK is leaving because of England's population size. That's it really. The votes of Scotland and NI were effectively neutered because you have large swathes of England wanting one thing, while the most affected region, NI, takes the brunt of that vote.

There are prominent posters who bemoan the electoral college in one thread, and then bemoan the unfairness of the Brexit vote in the other. These opinions are so often not opinions about the systems themselves; they're opinions resulting from the wrong side winning. If you want the electoral college to disappear, you are saying that NI's tiny population should be ruled by England's massive population, and there should never be any system in place to help avoid something like Brexit. The mere concept of "all four countries should have needed to vote for Brexit" disappears once you argue that the popular vote knows best.

In the US, Clinton won the popular vote because of LA. She won there by over three million votes. What is more representative of America? Trump winning far more states, or Clinton winning LA by a huge margin? Be honest with yourselves and forget about Trump. Winning far more states is more representative of America.

The entire notion of "the United States" falls apart once the majority of those states become irrelevant in a presidential election. One poster said eight states will have half the population by 2050 I think. Is your disdain for Trump really so strong that you would ironocally support a populist change that would damage politics in the long run? Unfortunately, I think that for most here, yes it is.

Kimsang

Deleted User wrote: »

There are prominent posters who bemoan the electoral college in one thread, and then bemoan the unfairness of the Brexit vote in the other. These opinions are so often not opinions about the systems themselves; they're opinions resulting from the wrong side winning.

As James Lindsay of the "Grievance Studies" hoax puts it

"This is a form of corruption that's political in nature, that's trying to change how we validate ideas, "idea laundering". You have these prejudices and opinions-Start with the right conclusion.... and you can conclude nearly anything as long as its hostile to the right things"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NelsKQQDTxU&fbclid=IwAR3-n1XgLBvEsU1MNSiYPYa_Vv-xVTXAJw1P29NRfPYfhf9yN7TMn2iVf0g

eire4

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm confused by this

What actually happened is that at the 2018 elections the North Carolina compliment of seats in the house of represetatives went 10-3 in favour of Republicans despite the fact that the share of the vote was almost a 50 50 split between Republicans and Democrats.


The Supreme court ruling while it did not officially say sure rigging election boundaries is ok effectively did so by leaving it with state legislatures who are now empowered to rig election boundaries as blatantly as the Republicans did in North Carolina.

At this point as this ruling has further entrenched really the idea that the US is a democracy is a joke.

There are of course lots of things that can be debated and argued over. This however is not one of them. The supreme court have dealt a massive blow against Democracy here. Rigging elections via gerrymandering is wrong end of story no grey area no debate to be had. But here once again the supreme court as they did with citizens united have made it very clear that they have not only no interest in democracy but are in fact openly interested in ensuring that the US becomes a full on banana republic which is a very scary prospect given the US like it or not is the most powerful country on the planet.

Lolle06

Deleted User wrote: »

There are prominent posters who bemoan the electoral college in one thread, and then bemoan the unfairness of the Brexit vote in the other. These opinions are so often not opinions about the systems themselves; they're opinions resulting from the wrong side winning. If you want the electoral college to disappear, you are saying that NI's tiny population should be ruled by England's massive population, and there should never be any system in place to help avoid something like Brexit. The mere concept of "all four countries should have needed to vote for Brexit" disappears once you argue that the popular vote knows best.

In the US, Clinton won the popular vote because of LA. She won there by over three million votes. What is more representative of America? Trump winning far more states, or Clinton winning LA by a huge margin? Be honest with yourselves and forget about Trump. Winning far more states is more representative of America.

Well, at the end of the day the Brexit vote was democratic, because every voter had the same vote and the majority of votes win. In a democracy, the minority is ruled by the majority (even if it means large losses to the minority)- otherwise it would be the other way around. In the US a few states basically outweigh other areas, with a higher population, because of the EC system. Cancelling out millions of votes to the benefit of a few thousand votes. The minority rules over the majority. Is this democratic?

looksee

Lolle06 wrote: »

Well, at the end of the day the Brexit vote was democratic, because every voter had the same vote and the majority of votes win. In a democracy, the minority is ruled by the majority (even if it means large losses to the minority)- otherwise it would be the other way around. In the US a few states basically outweigh other areas, with a higher population, because of the EC system. Cancelling out millions of votes to the benefit of a few thousand votes. The minority rules over the majority. Is this democratic?

A bit OT but the Brexit vote was not democratic, it was based on misinformation and was only ever supposed to be advisory. It was democratic to the extent that everyone had a vote, but voting was controlled by being based on lies. The result has since been treated as binding.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

We don't know that. Common Cause v Lewis is schedule to be heard in the North Carolina courts two weeks from today. It was only filed in November of 2018, so for much of the duration of the federal case, they had not even tried the State court option.

Will it effect every state? Until it is fixed it is a pretty big blow vs democracy.

@Ads: you can have an electoral system. However the US system entirely ca ignore big changes in many US states. 1 million extra people vote Republican in California because of a bad democrat candidate. Nobody cares. Similar for high percentage shifts in majority red/blue states. The new votes are irrelevant unless there is a shift of seismic proportions.

1% or 2% in Ohio and it is a big deal. You can overvalue small states but not have this issue.

Larbre34

He's on a bit of a mad one just now in Osaka, even by his standards.

MrFresh

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm confused by this

This video should help explain gerrymandering in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY