seems Krustee and KaKa had their firm convictions in The President reinforced last night, no plans for our nation, no evidence of ANY successful activity, and more blatant lies. More of the outrageous bullshit Chump made his âcareerâ on, gobbled up by idiots and other crooks hoping to rake in their share. Chumps incorporated, ruining our nation.
Why are republicans trying to suppress voting with restrictive voter I.D. laws, closing polling places, trying to end early voting, trying to end mail in voting? Because the more people who vote the more the democrat tends to win. Small voter turnout benefits republican candidates. I think it was Christopher Hitchens who once said "if every american was required, by law, to vote no republican would ever win another election"
Weirdly, when I was in high school (the mid 70s) one of our topics on the debate circuit was regarding voter registration being mandatory. I wrote up a plan which was straightforward: youâre registered whenever you get a driverâs license or its equivalent. Simple, done. Which political party would find that to be a problem?... Hint: the same party that uses gerrymandering to control the results of an election. Spoiler: the Republican Party
Too lazy to watch it yourself and form your own conclusions, eh ?
Instead you rely on a "summary" by the NYT which completely reinforces and confirms your prior bias, because the NYT has formed your personal bias from day one. Really ?
Sigh ... at least you are honest about it.
I avoid watching debates and speeches live. I start yelling at the TV when i tune in. And I lose interest about a half-hour in. Reading a transcript or a summary is so much quicker.
I do look over summaries and sometimes transcripts.
Yes with the Times there is the risk of confirmation bias in reading its summary but I suppose you could say that about every newspapers and major network.
CNN, Data for Progress, and YouGov all found more debate watchers thought Biden won.
CNN conducted its usual instant poll with SSRS, and they found that 53 percent of respondents who watched the debate thought Biden won, and 39 percent thought Trump won. (This poll and the others discussed in this article are different from those simple web polls in which anyone can vote â theyâre methodologically sound, albeit somewhat hasty, polls.)
...
A second poll of people who watched Thursdayâs debate, conducted by the progressive firm Data for Progress, found a similar result â 52 percent of respondents said they thought Biden won, and 41 percent said they thought Trump won.
...
Finally, a third poll, from YouGov, found the biggest margin for Biden, with 54 percent of debate-watching respondents saying he won while 35 percent saying Trump did.
Overall, these results suggest that Trumpâs performance did not do anything to shift the dynamics of the race, in which he is trailing, in his favor. As we may remember from 2016, the final debate doesnât end the campaign â there is still time for dramatic news events to shake things up, or for voters to change their minds. But that time is ticking away.
I just worked my way through the NYT's rolling summary of the debate's questions and answers. I'm biased but the summary reads like Biden was prepared, poised and forceful. Trump seemed to duck a lot of questions and talk about himself a lot—as usual.
Too lazy to watch it yourself and form your own conclusions, eh ?
Instead you rely on a "summary" by the NYT which completely reinforces and confirms your prior bias, because the NYT has formed your personal bias from day one. Really ?
Does Trump know that Kim has probably a hundred thousand north koreans in concentration camps where they are routinely tortured to death? That he had his uncle executed with an anti-aircraft gun in front of a stadium full of people? That he has people executed with flamethrowers? Does Trump actually know anything at all? Or does he just believe the facts that he constantly makes up? He keeps saying" the greatest economy in history". That is nonsense. "I've done more for black people than anyone since Abraham Lincoln". really? more than MLK? "foreign leaders have called me to congradulate me on my covid response" they have? which foreign leaders were they? what were their names?
I just worked my way through the NYT's rolling summary of the debate's questions and answers. I'm biased but the summary reads like Biden was prepared, poised and forceful. Trump seemed to duck a lot of questions and talk about himself a lot—as usual.
"foreign leaders have called me to congradulate me on my covid response"
This makes me giggle. The 5th-grade braggart inside Trump comes out again.
"If he (Biden) gets in, you will have a depression the likes of which you have never seen."
Even worse than the depression we have now?
"Iâm going to release them (Trump's tax returns) as soon as we can. I want to do it... But much more importantly than that, people were saying $750. I asked them a week ago. I said, what did I pay? They said sir, you prepaid tens of millions of dollars. I prepaid my tax.â
Trump's biographers have noted that when Trump tells a story in which someone calls him "sir", he's almost always lying.
âNancy Pelosi does not want to approve it (a coronavirus relief/stimulus plan),â Mr. Trump said. âWe are ready, willing, and able to do something."
Nancy Pelosi and Steve Mnuchin have been negotiating for months over the size and scope of a relief package. Trump pulled the plug on their negotiations—and then backpedaled a day or two later. Trump just throws out numbers without details. Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators do not support Trump's vague calls for a big package.
I gather Trump also promised a big new beautiful health care plan that he was going to detail...right after the election. Trump's new nickname should be "Imagonna."
No it is voting by state. We are a Union of 50 different states with different laws and different needs. These individual states need to have their POV represented. That is what the EC is all about. The 10th Amendment is about states rights IIRC. Then what would we need the 10th for anymore if 3 population centers are going to determine the future of this country and effectively cancel out state rights ?
Why are republicans trying to suppress voting with restrictive voter I.D. laws, closing polling places, trying to end early voting, trying to end mail in voting? Because the more people who vote the more the democrat tends to win. Small voter turnout benefits republican candidates. I think it was Christopher Hitchens who once said "if every american was required, by law, to vote no republican would ever win another election"
Zero. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to do that. It is a fundamental part of our Republican as in a Constitutional Republic form of government. It only pertains to the office of POTUS and nothing else.
Yes, the Electoral College does at time negate the popular vote. But as mentioned with all the inequities, so does a popular vote negate the smaller population areas. With a strictly popular vote for POTUS, there would be effectively 3 metropolitan areas of the country always controlling who is POTUS leaving everyone else in the cold before they even showed up at the polls. The election would be a forgone conclusion. The Electoral College keeps everyone else more in play than does a strictly popular vote. It allows for other POV's to be considered and hold sway and sometimes win.
A strictly popular vote for POTUS would make this a one party government for all the branches.
Voting by area is an irrelevancy. Less dense/more dense population is an irrelevancy.
Itâs fine if three metropolitan areas make the decisions at this point - because thatâs where most Americans are. When people move away (because things are always shifting) then those centers wonât be relevant as focii of votes, and thatâs OK too.
Itâs fine if the people who live in rural areas donât get what they want, because this is America where everyone matters. Whatâs also wrong would be if people in urban areas donât get what they want - jurst because of where they live. Oooops - are people of color mostly in urban areas? Thatâs certainly a coincidence, isnât it?
In a country where people arenât idiots (so maybe not the USA) the folks in rural, food-growing areas would still be looked out for - because we look out for everyone, if weâre sincere about a nation that looks out for all its citizens. As long as we intentionally lessen the vote voice of some of its citizens, itâs a bad thing. Amendment or not, it need fixing.
Anybody care to place odds on the threshold for switching the electoral college to a proportional outcome actually being reached in the next decade or two?
Zero. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to do that. It is a fundamental part of our Republican as in a Constitutional Republic form of government. It only pertains to the office of POTUS and nothing else.
Yes, the Electoral College does at time negate the popular vote. But as mentioned with all the inequities, so does a popular vote negate the smaller population areas. With a strictly popular vote for POTUS, there would be effectively 3 metropolitan areas of the country always controlling who is POTUS leaving everyone else in the cold before they even showed up at the polls. The election would be a forgone conclusion. The Electoral College keeps everyone else more in play than does a strictly popular vote. It allows for other POV's to be considered and hold sway and sometimes win.
A strictly popular vote for POTUS would make this a one party government for all the branches forever.
Does Trump know that Kim has probably a hundred thousand north koreans in concentration camps where they are routinely tortured to death? That he had his uncle executed with an anti-aircraft gun in front of a stadium full of people? That he has people executed with flamethrowers? Does Trump actually know anything at all? Or does he just believe the facts that he constantly makes up? He keeps saying" the greatest economy in history". That is nonsense. "I've done more for black people than anyone since Abraham Lincoln". really? more than MLK? "foreign leaders have called me to congradulate me on my covid response" they have? which foreign leaders were they? what were their names?
Trump was making a case for peaceful coexistence with North Korea;
Seems to me the dotard had plenty of time to achieve that, esp. with him having these legendary negotiation skills (slick video, Don!). A Nobel Prize was all but certain...
I came in late to the debate. Trump was making a case for peaceful coexistence with North Korea; Biden would not talk to them unless a certain number of conditions were met.
Well, for a few minutes, in the arena of foreign policy, I found myself sympathising more with Trump than Biden. After that....
Did somebody put Trump on a leash? He was almost well behaved. Donald J. Trump — whipped by a mute button.
Iâd pity you but youâre not worth it. Iâd pray for you but you donât have a soul to save. Iâd get angry with you but youâre attempts to goad me are transparently pathetic. Iâd debate you but you lack the substance to articulate intelligently. Iâd add more here but this all the keystrokes Iâll waste on on you.
Problem is everyone who supports Trump can't be a moron. I despise him but my brother loves him. How can this be? It seems obvious to me that Trump is a coward and a liar. But still, people I know well enough to know that they're not idiots support him. There's something very primal going on here. Something that goes much deeper than politics.
This is something to remember, because chanting âtheyâre all idiotsâ means your premise is wrong, and we donât listen after that. My older brother (not blood related, because adoption) is the world expert on Siamese Fighting Fish genetics, as well as speaking Russian, having a degree in psychology, building dulcimers from scratch, having a national chess ranking, growing bonsai, repairing clarinets, and teaching science...and an avid Trump supporter. I love the guy dearly, and heâs my favorite example of why itâs wrong to say that stupidity is the common thread through that group of Trump-positive people.
What I believe it really is, is a combination of feeling threatened by a loss of how âAmericansâ live due to more and more non-whites having an influence, plus the idea of âtheyâre talking all my stuffâ which is threatening. After all, looking at a system that lets people live off handouts instead of working, I can see how thereâs some validity there - and thatâs what Democrats represent to them.
Problem is everyone who supports Trump can't be a moron. I despise him but my brother loves him. How can this be? It seems obvious to me that Trump is a coward and a liar. But still, people I know well enough to know that they're not idiots support him. There's something very primal going on here. Something that goes much deeper than politics.
Have you considered at all that it may be your understanding of Trump that is in error?
"The secret of the Demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so that they believe they are as clever as he is." Barbara Kruger
1. The single person political party (and yes there is nothing stopping you forming your own one person party) 2. Candidature in an electorate (which doesn't require party affiliation IIRC). Not so cold out there after all. But if you insist on not having any supporters, I guess, yes, it could be a bit chilly at night. You could still get elected though - theoretically.
1. Ignored on purpose because 1a It's illegal in many cases here 1b The overhead required makes it impractical
I'm neck-deep in partisan politics (which means I really shouldn't be here doing this but I'm waiting for a 'puter to reboot after a driver update and as long as I ignore the login prompt I'm not really slacking, am I?) so I have a basic understanding of what is required to start and run a political party. Because I helped start and and run a political party.
Complying with the regulations (worse in my state than some others) takes a lot of time and effort, and is subject to arbitrary and draconian enforcement depending on who sees you as a threat. In many cases the structure of party leadership is dictated by state law, and where I live it requires a certain number of people be assigned to a certain number of posts regardless of what structure your party would prefer. So a 1-person party? Not possible, at least not possible to participate in the process as a party. Add the effort of campaigning (and fundraising, and complying with campaign finance law) (don't get me started) and there aren't enough hours in the day even if you flavor your coffee with crystal meth.
2. Not talking about candidates, talking about voters. An awful lot feel no particular affection for any party. Many feel such visceral disgust for the current system that they don't participate at all. Choose red or blue, or stay home! Many choose the latter option.
No, of course not.. just like me, hard at work.
Re 1) Ideally, of course, it would be great to have something like an ancient Greek forum where we could all go down in our togas to hammer out public policy without any parties taking root. Having read the Persian Fire from Tom Holland recently, I discovered that democracy in ancient Greece was 1) not very widespread and 2) stumbled into by accident and 3) fraught with family affiliations. But the lure remains. It just isn't very realistic in a pluralistic society. You will always have groups of free-thinking individuals banding together to promote some kind of common cause unless you actively prohibit it (like we prohibit price-fixing I guess).
Nevertheless, you could lower the barriers for the one-person party by removing the paper work. This is after all, just a technicality. So your objection is not based on principle, but on the technicalities.
Re 2) here I don't follow you either. Voter disaffection is firmly rooted in the current system. So why not change the system? Maybe those voters would come out and support an independent candidate? MMP is a solution here, not a cause. Using the failings of the old system to damn the new system before it has a chance doesn't make much sense.
1. The single person political party (and yes there is nothing stopping you forming your own one person party) 2. Candidature in an electorate (which doesn't require party affiliation IIRC). Not so cold out there after all. But if you insist on not having any supporters, I guess, yes, it could be a bit chilly at night. You could still get elected though - theoretically.
1. Ignored on purpose because 1a It's illegal in many cases here 1b The overhead required makes it impractical
I'm neck-deep in partisan politics (which means I really shouldn't be here doing this but I'm waiting for a 'puter to reboot after a driver update and as long as I ignore the login prompt I'm not really slacking, am I?) so I have a basic understanding of what is required to start and run a political party. Because I helped start and and run a political party.
Complying with the regulations (worse in my state than some others) takes a lot of time and effort, and is subject to arbitrary and draconian enforcement depending on who sees you as a threat. In many cases the structure of party leadership is dictated by state law, and where I live it requires a certain number of people be assigned to a certain number of posts regardless of what structure your party would prefer. So a 1-person party? Not possible, at least not possible to participate in the process as a party. Add the effort of campaigning (and fundraising, and complying with campaign finance law) (don't get me started) and there aren't enough hours in the day even if you flavor your coffee with crystal meth.
2. Not talking about candidates, talking about voters. An awful lot feel no particular affection for any party. Many feel such visceral disgust for the current system that they don't participate at all. Choose red or blue, or stay home! Many choose the latter option.
Trump's new nickname should be "Imagonna." 
No, of course not.. just like me, hard at work. 