2020 US Presidential Election Discussion (primary & general)

[Akito Kinomoto]

Impeachment was never going to remove Trump from office with the republicans still controlling the senate. They would have actually hurt his approval rating with tries of corruption, enabling war crimes, and violation of the emoluments clause. But of course they can't do that because the democrats play the same game too

Also. Obstruction of justice isn't a crime that would actually be as damning as the dems think it is

"he's in jail for resisting arrest"
"what were you originally arresting him for?"
"newphonewhodis"

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Akito Kinomoto

Also. Obstruction of justice isn't a crime that would actually be as damning as the dems think it is

"he's in jail for resisting arrest"
"what were you originally arresting him for?"
"newphonewhodis"

He was accused of obstruction because he impeded the investigation about Russia interfering with the 2016 election. We're not talking about some petty crime here but about a foreign state actively using their power to influence the government of a sovereign state.

[Crusch's_Keeper]

Originally Posted by GDB

No, he was found not guilty because the GOP Senate was complicit.

Politics may have played a role in influencing the GOP controlled senate's decision to acquit, but to claim that they were complicit is a stretch. These stretches are what desensitized people to the whole Russian election interference scandal.

[Magin]

This isn't really related to the election itself, but it's very political and goes in-depth about what I believe is the REAL problem of America that Trump has simply taken advantage of and inflamed (hint, it's not racism, even though racism is part of it... it's something that EVERY country arguably faces, and because America is so big, and in the day and age of the internet, it gets magnified 1000x)

Yes, it's a good 15~20 minute read and craps on those who would identify as liberal... but they're the ones who need to read it the most too.

What Liberals don't realize

[Ithekro]

That is basically correct. That's more or less what i hear when I go visit friends of my father in rural areas of Oregon and California, or talk with Mormons or Catholics that live in the suburbs. Some of whom would rather not be in the cities or at least what they consider dumb lawyer run Democrat states, with more rules than brains.

[Kuroageha]

Originally Posted by Key Board

Dems are still worrying about their candidate electability

while the GOP are thinking about power grabs (Trump flooding the courts with Federalist judges AGAIN), and potential voter suppression (USPS, Covid19 issues)

They're playing a totally different game. Why are Dems so bad at this.

//

Tunnel vision.

[Sheba]

Whats you guys' plan? Sit this one out again? Then finding more excuses while the God Emperor keep having his petty revenge against the one black guy who made sassy comments over him, at the expense of everyone else?

I am asking as someone who grudgingly ended up voting Macron because the alternative is fucking Le Pen and hated what the left have become after getting contaminated by USA brand of identity politics.

[Eisdrache]

Biden needs to address the worries of people not belonging to middle class or above. They would be perfectly fine with voting democrat if he could promise them job security, secure housing, basic education for their kids, affordable health care, a basic retirement provision, and so on.

"But he did all of that and more."

He (and Warren and especially Sanders) did, in a language that they did not understand. I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article above but if one thing is true then it's that the democrats are utter garbage at explaining their ideas to rural voters.

[Ithekro]

They don't need to convince the cities, they already vote Democrat majority. Its the rural areas and smaller towns in the ENTIRE REST OF THE COUNTRY, they need to work on.

While people talk about the Electoral College verses Popular Vote, one of the reasons the argument to keep the Electoral College is so that the President is not chosen only by Los Angeles and New York, with the say of the rest of the country being largely irrelevant in a popular vote.
While this can be considered an over-exaggeration, the concept of the cities dominating the rest of the country via popular vote is a thing.

Thus the voting district maps make the country look like a sea of Republican voters, yet the results show a Democratic majority vote in terms of population. Thus making the "Sea of Red" feel like they are being dictated too by the cities who not only don't understand, them, but dismiss them entirely. (in 1941 there was a separatist movement in Northern California and Southern Oregon to create a new state of Jefferson largely due to this issues. The local counties didn't feel that the state capitals were addressing their needs at all, and moved to form their own state to allow them to address their own needs. They actually gain a bit of a following with a slight chance it might have worked, since it is possible Congress would have gone for it...but the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the war started, and the Federal Government addressed the major issues the locals had because their issues became critical for national defense (getting strategic resources out of the region, thus the building of major highways and the needs of the lumber industry)

Add to this the meme cultures and you have the Republican voting blocks calling the Democrats Communist that are trying to destroy America, while you have the Democratic voting blocks calling the Republicans Fascist Nazis trying to destroy America. You start to get no functional contact between the two groups that isn't flame wars. Instead both get more set in their ways and more determined that the other political group is the "Domestic Enemy" that should be removed from the country to save it.

[kari-no-sugata II]

Originally Posted by Magin

This isn't really related to the election itself, but it's very political and goes in-depth about what I believe is the REAL problem of America that Trump has simply taken advantage of and inflamed (hint, it's not racism, even though racism is part of it... it's something that EVERY country arguably faces, and because America is so big, and in the day and age of the internet, it gets magnified 1000x)

Yes, it's a good 15~20 minute read and craps on those who would identify as liberal... but they're the ones who need to read it the most too.

What Liberals don't realize

Somewhat reminds me of the situation in the UK. Obviously it doesn't have the clear political rural divide that the USA has (at least not anymore). But during the Blair years, Labour ("New Labour") paid less attention to their "base" - sometimes called the working class but basically lower educated voters. Being increasingly ignored, their base started ignoring Labour over time in return, generally not voting at all. Many of them started voting for UKIP (UK Independence Party) when that became a big thing. Labour became increasingly dominated by the urban elite, as they saw it. The big win in the 2019 by the Conservatives has basically been in motion for 20 years, with many of Labour's old base voting Conservative for the first time in their lives. The more the liberal types equated Brexit with racism the more that pissed off such voters.

In short, ignore voters and they'll ignore you. Don't talk down to them. Don't try to guilt trip them or preach to them.

[Akito Kinomoto]

The divide in the U.S. isn't between left and right

It's the top 1% vs everyone else

The culture war is how they get everyone distracted with each other while the CEOs run out the back door with all the money and then some. The democratic establishment overall is in lock-step with the GOP on economic policy. Congress gets a 22% approval rating on a good day. Voters know they're picking between the lesser of two evils who don't actually represent them. "I didn't replace your outsourced factory job but don't worry; here's a rainbow flag/feminism BAD!"

Follow the benjamins and see who the real enemy of the people is

[Key Board]

Ideology matters

maybe it's a choice between "some regulation for the wealthy" and "no regulation for the wealthy"

but it's still an important choice to make.

especially since some politicians are trying to promote "being american = love unrestricted corporate capitalism. (except when China does a better job than us"

//

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Crusch's_Keeper

Politics may have played a role in influencing the GOP controlled senate's decision to acquit, but to claim that they were complicit is a stretch. These stretches are what desensitized people to the whole Russian election interference scandal.

complicit
/kəmˈplɪsɪt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: complicit

involved with others in an activity that is unlawful or morally wrong.
"the careers of those complicit in the cover-up were blighted"

Considering the Senate GOP (or at least parts of it, such as Nunes) actively assisted in the obstruction...

Just because you don't like a word doesn't make it not the right word.

Originally Posted by Magin

This isn't really related to the election itself, but it's very political and goes in-depth about what I believe is the REAL problem of America that Trump has simply taken advantage of and inflamed (hint, it's not racism, even though racism is part of it... it's something that EVERY country arguably faces, and because America is so big, and in the day and age of the internet, it gets magnified 1000x)

Yes, it's a good 15~20 minute read and craps on those who would identify as liberal... but they're the ones who need to read it the most too.

What Liberals don't realize

Why is it always "liberals" who need to learn to understand "conservatives", yet it's never on "conservatives" to try to understand "liberals"?

Even moreso when "conservatives" love to lash out at "liberals" as being snowflakes, yet that article you just posted is literally calling "conservatives" snowflakes like it's a good thing. Things change and it isn't explained to them, their feelings are hurt, they feel threatened, they only care about themselves (ie: they don't know minorities, so they don't care about them), they vote by how they feel, etc. It tries to say "liberals" should be more understanding, because "conservatives" buy into propaganda more. It says they play dirty because it works, and for some reason "liberals" need to be more understanding to them?

Literally the only valid point in that article is that "liberals" suck at marketing/propaganda. It may be accurate in terms of how rural voters feel, but that doesn't make the points its trying to make valid.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

They don't need to convince the cities, they already vote Democrat majority. Its the rural areas and smaller towns in the ENTIRE REST OF THE COUNTRY, they need to work on.

While people talk about the Electoral College verses Popular Vote, one of the reasons the argument to keep the Electoral College is so that the President is not chosen only by Los Angeles and New York, with the say of the rest of the country being largely irrelevant in a popular vote.
While this can be considered an over-exaggeration, the concept of the cities dominating the rest of the country via popular vote is a thing.

Turn it around. Why should the cities be dominated by the rural parts of the country? Why does a person in Montana get approximately three times the value for their vote as someone in California?

Neither is inherently better than the other. The optimal path is to re-partition the EC votes so that that votes more closely line up with population. Doesn't have to be 1:1, but there's zero reason why someone in the middle of nowhere should have "more votes" than someone in a city.

Kind of ties back into that article above. "Conservatives" say it isn't fair if popular vote is used because it's biased towards cities. "Liberals" say it isn't fair if EC is used because city votes aren't worth as much. For some reason the "liberals" are the ones who are wrong and complain about things being unfair when both do it. Blatant hypocrisy.

[Ithekro]

The Electoral College is still dominated by the cities in their states. All it does is give the states with low populations a voice at all. Otherwise the popular vote in the small states won't matter at all. They will be drowned out by the larger states and cities because they won't matter politically. No one will stump there. No media will cover there, and no issues of those areas will matter in the Presidential race. The stumping will only be held in the large cities where there is massive populations.

And what happens when a population gets to the point were they don't matter and have no voice in how a country works? Usually that leads to bloody revolutions.

As for why does someone in Montana get to be three times the vote of a person in California? Because without that the one person in Montana won't matter politically at all because they are out numbered by nearly 40 to 1 by California alone. California Republicans were outvoted by the California Democrats by around two to one plus without even counting the other parties that could be voted for there. Those votes don't matter in the E.C. either, but would drowned every single vote from Montana as if it was nothing.

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, got more votes in California that all the people that voted in the State of Montana in the 2016 Election. And Montana had a nearly 75% voter turnout while California had less than a 54% voter turnout. That how wide the gap is.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

As for why does someone in Montana get to be three times the vote of a person in California? Because without that the one person in Montana won't matter politically at all because they are out numbered by nearly 40 to 1 by California alone. California Republicans were outvoted by the California Democrats by around two to one plus without even counting the other parties that could be voted for there. Those votes don't matter in the E.C. either, but would drowned every single vote from Montana as if it was nothing.

So, because they're outnumbered, 1 vote in Montana is worth 120 votes in California? Nothing there explains why it's okay for this to happen.

[Magin]

You're right. It;s not perfect. I think everyone can agree that the current system needs a change. But to completely get rid of the EC is still a bad idea. Because there's a very good reason why, as unfortunate as it is, that one vote in Montana has equal power: Resources.

Actually, it's better to compare it to Nebraska or Iowa. You might have more people on the coasts of California or along New York/The Tri-State area... but you don't have land. Land remains an INCREDIBLY valuable resource. Not just for building and real estate, but for food production. If someone in a rural area ultimately feels like they're getting fucked over, they can choose to simply destroy their crops, or at least hold on to just enough for themselves and their families. In fact, I'm already hearing about dairy farmers dumping their milk because of prices. And this happens more frequently than you might realize.

It's why it's on "liberals" to understand "conservatives"- like it or not, the people who generally identify as "conservative" are also responsible for the food at your table, and that's a basic human necessity.

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by GDB

So, because they're outnumbered, 1 vote in Montana is worth 120 votes in California? Nothing there explains why it's okay for this to happen.

Yeah, that's a serious BS argument.

Without the electoral college (which pretty much every democracy with a directly-elected executive manages to survive without) every vote counts the same - one vote. If you think your vote doesn't matter because a politician doesn't do a stump speech at the local VFW hall, you have a poor grasp of how elections work.

The fact is that small states already have a massive overrepresentation in government because of the Senate. They also get a hugely disproportionate share of the federal budget per capita. The electoral college is simply the cherry on top of an undemocratic sundae.

[Sheba]

All the Democracies in Europe: All votes counts.

USA:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

As for why does someone in Montana get to be three times the vote of a person in California? Because without that the one person in Montana won't matter politically at all because they are out numbered by nearly 40 to 1 by California alone. California Republicans were outvoted by the California Democrats by around two to one plus without even counting the other parties that could be voted for there. Those votes don't matter in the E.C. either, but would drowned every single vote from Montana as if it was nothing.

Absolute bullshit.

[Ithekro]

This isn't a democracy. This is a constitutional republic. The system is designed because it does not wish to be a democracy were 51% of the population can make all the rules. It is a check and balance for a country that is still very regional in nature. A check and balance intended to maintain the concept of majority rules and minority rights.

The majorities in the voting are by district, not nation wide. If the majority of the districts vote one way, the state votes that way and the electors submit those for President. The majority of the electors among the total from the states is needed to elect the president. The system has worked for the majority of the Presidential elections for two centuries with only a few oddities, and nothing coming anywhere near the proposed worst case scenario. If it is off its off by relatively small percentages and tends to remind the government that they can't just ignore regions entirely.

This gives the smaller states an actual say in who the President is. This method of voting is only used to select the President and Vice President. It is not used for anything else. The reasoning for it to be important is regionalism and states. For example, based on voting population in 2016 alone, the County of Los Angeles has more voting power than 38 states taken individually (3.4 million votes in the 2016 election. New Jersey is the first of 12 states that had more than that total votes that election.) Approximately equal in terms of population to the seven smallest (by voting population) states and D.C. combined.

We aren't talking about a relatively small republic like France. France is land wise roughly the size of Texas. The United States is around 18 times larger than that by landmass with five times the population. What works in France is not necessarily going to work in the United States due to scale and regionalism. Its more on the scale of voting for the entire European Union, which as far as I know, doesn't hold a direct democratic vote for its leader.

[Anh_Minh]

The problem with that system (or any electoral system in a democracy or "democracy") is that it relies on elected officials to change it. Officials who owe their power to that very system.

I mean, put yourself in Republican shoes. You have a majority in the Senate, the Presidency, in plenty of courts... would you change the system to one that ensure your party will never win a big election ever again?

Originally Posted by Ithekro

This isn't a democracy. This is a constitutional republic. The system is designed because it does not wish to be a democracy were 51% of the population can make all the rules. It is a check and balance for a country that is still very regional in nature. A check and balance intended to maintain the concept of majority rules and minority rights.

The majorities in the voting are by district, not nation wide. If the majority of the districts vote one way, the state votes that way and the electors submit those for President. The majority of the electors among the total from the states is needed to elect the president. The system has worked for the majority of the Presidential elections for two centuries with only a few oddities, and nothing coming anywhere near the proposed worst case scenario. If it is off its off by relatively small percentages and tends to remind the government that they can't just ignore regions entirely.

This gives the smaller states an actual say in who the President is. This method of voting is only used to select the President and Vice President. It is not used for anything else. The reasoning for it to be important is regionalism and states. For example, based on voting population in 2016 alone, the County of Los Angeles has more voting power than 38 states taken individually (3.4 million votes in the 2016 election. New Jersey is the first of 12 states that had more than that total votes that election.) Approximately equal in terms of population to the seven smallest (by voting population) states and D.C. combined.

We aren't talking about a relatively small republic like France. France is land wise roughly the size of Texas. The United States is around 18 times larger than that by landmass with five times the population. What works in France is not necessarily going to work in the United States due to scale and regionalism. Its more on the scale of voting for the entire European Union, which as far as I know, doesn't hold a direct democratic vote for its leader.

France is a constitutional republic, in that it's a republic with a constitution, and a democracy, in that it has a government by the people through elected officials.

Speaking of the EU, we have no equivalent to your Senate, where 51% of the votes in the smallest state is worth as much as 90% in the most populous.

It's also highly disingenuous to compare the "leader" of the EU with the PotUS.