US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

MJohnston · 11-12-2020 09:28AM

It's a strange choice. Time have given person of the year to generic groups before, like persecuted journalists, people who spoke out during #MeToo, and famously "You" back in 2006.

I would definitely have given it to something like frontline workers.

Christy42 · 11-12-2020 09:36AM

MJohnston wrote: »

It's a strange choice. Time have given person of the year to generic groups before, like persecuted journalists, people who spoke out during #MeToo, and famously "You" back in 2006.

I would definitely have given it to something like frontline workers.

It seems traditional for the election winner to get it. Maybe they thought it would be a bigger message if they didn't get it?

I would have given it to the front like workers myself though but I can't say it is a strange choice given the last one not to get it on winning an election was Clinton in 96 who got in 98 anyway (and had it from his 92 win as well).

FreudianSlippers · 11-12-2020 12:10PM

Water John wrote: »

I'll up you and give you, Ted Cruz. Just don't understand how anyone votes for them. You have Mitch wanting peoples unemployment benefit cut in return for the next Covid relief cheque.

I'd nominate Jim "Gym" Jordan as being up there with Mitch and Ted as well.

Rjd2 · 11-12-2020 03:07PM

Tell me how wrote: »

If you were meeting a friend for a socially distant drink on New Years eve, and you were talking about the people who would attracted most attention this year, you'd spend 70% of the conversation talking about Trump.

Again, that doesn't mean that you'd be praising him but he attracted so much attention for 3 very distinct things; his Covid performance, his reaction to BLM protests and his campaign, defeat and subsequent post election behavior.

Depends on how you define the award, ultimately nobody in the world has been as consequential as Trump has been if obviously for less than ideal reasons he should have won, but probably would not have been worth the incredibly boring debate afterwards.

Probably should have given it to George Floyd tbh.

Brussels Sprout · 14-12-2020 01:58PM

Electoral College votes are happening from 3pm -> 8pm our time

looksee · 14-12-2020 02:15PM

I understand, I think, how the Electoral College works, and I understand that there can be faithless electors who do not go with the popular vote, but vote on their own preference. Many states have some sort of laws to ensure this does not happen, and electors have to vote with the popular vote, and the Supreme Court upheld this.

So why is the Electoral College needed at all? It is not unreasonable to weight the system a bit, the EU does the same thing I think to ensure that smaller countries do have a voice. So why not just automatically add up the votes that would be given to each state if electors were true to the popular vote? Am I missing something?

ancapailldorcha · 14-12-2020 02:21PM

looksee wrote: »

I understand, I think, how the Electoral College works, and I understand that there can be faithless electors who do not go with the popular vote, but vote on their own preference. Many states have some sort of laws to ensure this does not happen, and electors have to vote with the popular vote, and the Supreme Court upheld this.

So why is the Electoral College needed at all? It is not unreasonable to weight the system a bit, the EU does the same thing I think to ensure that smaller countries do have a voice. So why not just automatically add up the votes that would be given to each state if electors were true to the popular vote? Am I missing something?

My understanding is that it's a relic from the days of slavery where southern states wanted slaves to be weighted but not represented. The result was that every five slaves would count as three people for the purposes of adding electors, known as the three-fifths compromise.

robinph · 14-12-2020 02:33PM

...because it's the way they have always done it and was set out in the constitution (don't think it actually was) and because the people who wrote the constitution were infallible (they weren't) nobody should ever dispute the wording of the first version of the constitution...well except for any amendments that were subsequently made, but they were clearly always intended by the authors of the constitution and they had written them right from the start but decided not to include them for some reason at the time...but the constitution is an unchangeable document except for the changes that have been made to it.

Or something along those lines is the reason that the daftest and most complicated election system on the planet is what the USA uses.

Brussels Sprout · 14-12-2020 02:42PM

looksee wrote: »

So why is the Electoral College needed at all? It is not unreasonable to weight the system a bit, the EU does the same thing I think to ensure that smaller countries do have a voice. So why not just automatically add up the votes that would be given to each state if electors were true to the popular vote? Am I missing something?

There's nothing in the US Constitution saying that there needs to be a popular vote for President. The framers didn't trust that the uneducated general public wouldn't pick some populist (ha!) so they conceived of the electoral college to vote for the President directly. The idea would be that the public would vote for the electors and then the electors would have the wisdom and knowledge to choose the best candidate of their own choosing.

However, despite the framers intentions the convention quickly became what it is today, whereby the electors were voted for purely on the basis that they would vote for a specific candidate. In some states to this day it still says "Electors for candidate XYZ" on the ballot. The constitutional roots of the role are also why it is so difficult to stop "faithless electors" from exercising their own free-will when casting their votes.

Gbear · 14-12-2020 04:47PM

There's nothing wrong with weighting electors unequally to give smaller states more representation. You don't need a simple national majority to drastically increase the enfranchisement of 75% of voters in the country, whose votes are essentially worthless because of the state they live in.

The US isn't a single state, and just as in the EU, where countries like Ireland have a stronger voice in proportion to their population than Germany does, you need to make it worthwhile to the smaller states for them to value the Union.

The real issue is that electors aren't appointed in proportion to the votes within a state. Democrats in Kentucky, or Republicans in California may as well not bother turning up, and that's unacceptable, but if each of those states' electors were awarded in a 60/40 or 70/30 split, or however the vote breaks down, then every vote would count, but the smaller states wouldn't be totally drowned out.

looksee · 14-12-2020 06:07PM

At this moment the electoral college votes are 108 - 56 to Biden. Obviously Biden has won! I wonder why Trump isn't tweeting this, it seems to be the way he sees voting results?

Water John · 14-12-2020 08:18PM

I think the EC was an agreed compromise in 1789.
Texas had 2 faithless electors in 2016 who did not vote for Trump.

MadYaker · 14-12-2020 09:12PM

looksee wrote: »

I understand, I think, how the Electoral College works, and I understand that there can be faithless electors who do not go with the popular vote, but vote on their own preference. Many states have some sort of laws to ensure this does not happen, and electors have to vote with the popular vote, and the Supreme Court upheld this.

So why is the Electoral College needed at all? It is not unreasonable to weight the system a bit, the EU does the same thing I think to ensure that smaller countries do have a voice. So why not just automatically add up the votes that would be given to each state if electors were true to the popular vote? Am I missing something?

It’s because Americans are slaves to their constitution and the two party system that has evolved makes it very hard to amend it.

looksee · 14-12-2020 10:30PM

Biden takes it!

sliabh 1956 · 14-12-2020 10:44PM

Trump has sacked Bill Barr the circus goes on

looksee · 14-12-2020 10:55PM

I'd say Barr quit. He said he would stay until he saw the axe falling - well more or less he said that. Then he would quit.

Rjd2 · 14-12-2020 11:03PM

looksee wrote: »

I'd say Barr quit. He said he would stay until he saw the axe falling - well more or less he said that. Then he would quit.

Best for all involved really, Barr will be one of the few trump employees who won't hammer him in the next few years while in return an amicable break up means a political run if he is that way inclined won't be derailed by a bitter Trump.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-12-2020 11:09PM

dogbert27 wrote: »

If you tell a narcissist they are person of the year, even for the wrong reasons, they will only see it as a positive for them.

Times Magazine was right to not feed the bad behaviour.

Adolf Hitler: Man of the Year, 1938 you won't believe what happened next.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

He didn't win by 57%. He won with 57%. That's a critical distinction.

He got 57% of the vote. Trump got 62% so McConnell trailed him but he still got enough support to beat McGrath by 19.6% despite some split ticket Trump/McGrath voting.

The logical fallacy at play here is that people think just because McConnell is unpopular with Kentuckians that he should have lost. That didn't happen because his opponent was even more unpopular.

In Scotland Nicola Sturgeon has an approval rating of 49%, Boris Johnson's is -58%

That's a difference of 107% , I'd love to see the US style spin on that.

TomOnBoard · 15-12-2020 12:15AM

Rjd2 wrote: »

Best for all involved really, Barr will be one of the few trump employees who won't hammer him in the next few years while in return an amicable break up means a political run if he is that way inclined won't be derailed by a bitter Trump.

Barr will go down in history as one of the most pernicious elements of the Trump era.

When he was appointed as the highest legal officer and most trusted leader of the country's legal administration, he prostituted himself to a Mafia Don Wannabee who had only his own interests at heart. Of all of the pathetic, execrable scabs that comprised this failed Presidency, apart from possibly Stephen Miller, Barr was the scabbiest of them all..

May he rot in his exit, and let no-one attempt to paint his resignation as anything other than King Rat jumping before all the lifeboats have gone.

Professor Moriarty · 15-12-2020 12:36AM

Great speech by Biden.

Professor Moriarty · 15-12-2020 12:39AM

Sticking it to the GOP and Trump. Go Joe.

MadYaker · 15-12-2020 10:49AM

Rjd2 wrote: »

Best for all involved really, Barr will be one of the few trump employees who won't hammer him in the next few years while in return an amicable break up means a political run if he is that way inclined won't be derailed by a bitter Trump.

A political run?! He belongs in prison along with Trump.

Tell me how · 15-12-2020 03:45PM

Rjd2 wrote: »

Best for all involved really, Barr will be one of the few trump employees who won't hammer him in the next few years while in return an amicable break up means a political run if he is that way inclined won't be derailed by a bitter Trump.

Barr will never run politically. He has zero charisma and seemed to hate being on camera.

hirondelle · 15-12-2020 05:20PM

MadYaker wrote: »

A political run?! He belongs in prison along with Trump.

My recollection of the St. john's Church Bible-waving stunt was that Barr brought forward the curfew by 15 minutes with the peaceful protestors not informed of the change. The ensuing seal cull was a deliberate act of violence against constitutionally-protected rights of citizens to demonstrate by the sitting AG and therefore, for this one action alone, he should be jailed.

Igotadose · 15-12-2020 05:30PM

Interesting FB post from an old attorney friend who used to live in WI about the most recent failed lawsuit:

"So a friend of mine shared the link to the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision affirming the circuit court decision against Trump, Pence & the Trump Campaign regarding voter fraud. As I am reading the petitioner's complaint (4 points) I am struck on how totally unrealistic and illogical they are and thinking to myself how embarrassing it must have been to present these in oral arguments to the court. Having worked for a WI based law firm a number of years I scrolled back up to see which high-powered firm the cash rich Trump campaign hired to represent them. None. The firms, which I won't list here, are truly strip mall attorneys, and the attorney chosen to print the oral arguments is a divorce and personal injury attorney. Nothing wrong with that area of law as I know a few qualified and outstanding individuals that practice in that area. But I would have expected with literally hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to overturn the election results that the Trump campaign would have engaged a larger firm with vast resources and experience in election law. "

Brussels Sprout · 15-12-2020 06:04PM

Igotadose wrote: »

Interesting FB post from an old attorney friend who used to live in WI about the most recent failed lawsuit:

"So a friend of mine shared the link to the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision affirming the circuit court decision against Trump, Pence & the Trump Campaign regarding voter fraud. As I am reading the petitioner's complaint (4 points) I am struck on how totally unrealistic and illogical they are ....."

and yet it only failed by a single vote - 3 of the sitting justices backed the Trump side.

The surprise victory by the Democratic backed candidate in the election to that court earlier this year made all the difference.

Wisconsin already has the most Gerrymandered legislature in the country. It's got a lot of institutional problems.

Spanish Eyes · 15-12-2020 06:08PM

Trump needs to take his tablets along with many of his MAGA supporters with baseball caps and low loader trucks.

Worrying in a way that 70 or so million voted for this moron. Will the frenzy dissipate I wonder.

serfboard · 15-12-2020 06:08PM

Igotadose wrote: »

"But I would have expected with literally hundreds of millions of dollars of donations to overturn the election results that the Trump campaign would have engaged a larger firm with vast resources and experience in election law. "

Whereas people who know Trump would expect him to do exactly what he is doing, while enriching himself and his family in the process.

Trump really doesn't expect the cases to succeed, which is why he is not spending big (donated) money on the best lawyers.

dogbert27 · 15-12-2020 07:19PM

It's been said on here that Trump often accuses others of what he is guilty of himself.

Because he lost the election nobody is saying to dig in to his votes but for him to win 70 million maybe someone should turn the tables and start investigating voter fraud for Trump votes.

Overheal · 15-12-2020 07:48PM

dogbert27 wrote: »

It's been said on here that Trump often accuses others of what he is guilty of himself.

Because he lost the election nobody is saying to dig in to his votes but for him to win 70 million maybe someone should turn the tables and start investigating voter fraud for Trump votes.

Oh we are.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-supporter-arrested-requesting-absentee-234948543.html

Robert R. Lynn has been charged with felony counts of forgery and interference with an election

A Pennsylvania man has been arrested after allegedly forging the signature of his dead mother on an application for an absentee ballot.

Robert R. Lynn, 67, of Luzerne County has been charged with felony counts of forgery and interference with an election, The Huffington Post reports.

Lynn, a Republican and Trump supporter, is accused of requesting an absentee ballot for his mother Marie P. Hannigan, who died in 2015. The application noted Hannigan’s reason for the request as “visiting great-grandkids Oct. 24-Nov. 10,” the complaint states, according to the report

The application was also flagged because the signature reportedly did not match the one on file for Hannigan in the database of voter information. Election officials notified county detectives of the suspicious application.

When questioned by investigators, Lynn initially tried to blame a relative before later confessing to his misdeeds.

This is the first case of alleged voter fraud in the county in three decades.

“There’s always going to be people out there who are trying to take advantage of the system or cheat the system, but most importantly, there’s people on the other side making sure that doesn’t happen,” Luzerne County Manager David Pedri said.

“I hope that this case really proves as an example to any individual who’s thinking that they can do anything with regards to this election. People are watching these things,” Pedri added.

US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Comments