What's new

Donald is about to go through some things...




LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
Honestly, I see that as the most likely scenario.
You're probably right. It's really depressing we can't get anyone better, or who would actually be effective at the job, let alone reuniting the country. I understand recency bias and all that but have we ever been at such a low point for the quality of leadership in the country in general? No one inspires hope. I think that's a big reason trump was so popular, he represented a change from the status quo and struck the right nerves to instill some measure of hope in his constituency, however misguided it was.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
You're probably right. It's really depressing we can't get anyone better, or who would actually be effective at the job, let alone reuniting the country. I understand recency bias and all that but have we ever been at such a low point for the quality of leadership in the country in general? No one inspires hope. I think that's a big reason trump was so popular, he represented a change from the status quo and struck the right nerves to instill some measure of hope in his constituency, however misguided it was.
Wasn’t Obama seen a change from the status quo? Wasn’t W Bush? We seem to always want “change” despite having relatively prosperous and peaceful lives.

And what change do Americans actually want? The electorate often sends conflicting signals. They are concerned about the national debt but then elect politicians who promise tax cuts. They want to protect the social safety net then elect politicians who promise to wreck those programs. They want health care to be cheaper then elect a bunch of politicians who promise to make it more expensive and harder to get. They hate “the establishment” then elect a sleazy reality tv star who brags about enriching himself.

This was taken just prior to the midterms. 40 percent of those polled, Rs and Ds think that decreasing interest rates would help with inflation. How are you supposed to govern like this?
0102015A-1F4C-412C-9436-5B32A031DD69.jpeg
And that’s without taking into consideration that even on issues that voters from political parties agree on, like greater gun regulation, the structures of the filibuster in the Senate make it impossible to implement popular policy.

I think Biden actually won’t run again. I could see Harris (hope not), Mayor Pete (I think he’d be great but he’s gay so he’s unelectable), and Gov Whitmer (hope she does) run.
 
Last edited:

Douchebag K

Well-Known Member
You're probably right. It's really depressing we can't get anyone better, or who would actually be effective at the job, let alone reuniting the country. I understand recency bias and all that but have we ever been at such a low point for the quality of leadership in the country in general? No one inspires hope. I think that's a big reason trump was so popular, he represented a change from the status quo and struck the right nerves to instill some measure of hope in his constituency, however misguided it was.

surely he's burned enough bridges that the people that appealed to have decreased in number by now ?
 

Rubashov

Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
surely he's burned enough bridges that the people that appealed to have decreased in number by now ?

Nonsense, politics as entertainment, everyone loves a car crash. The problem is that the Chinese and Russians love them too, four more years of Trump and a second civil war over there might be a good thing.
 

fishonjazz

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
Wasn’t Obama seen a change from the status quo? Wasn’t W Bush? We seem to always want “change” despite having relatively prosperous and peaceful lives.

And what change do Americans actually want? The electorate often sends conflicting signals. They are concerned about the national debt but then elect politicians who promise tax cuts. They want to protect the social safety net then elect politicians who promise to wreck those programs. They want health care to be cheaper then elect a bunch of politicians who promise to make it more expensive and harder to get. They hate “the establishment” then elect a sleazy reality tv star who brags about enriching himself.

This was taken just prior to the midterms. 40 percent of those polled, Rs and Ds think that decreasing interest rates would help with inflation. How are you supposed to govern like this?
View attachment 13390
And that’s without taking into consideration that even on issues that voters from political parties agree on, like greater gun regulation, the structures of the filibuster in the Senate make it impossible to implement popular policy.

I think Biden actually won’t run again. I could see Harris (hope not), Mayor Pete (I think he’d be great but he’s gay so he’s unelectable), and Gov Whitmer (hope she does) run.

Man i would love it if pete ran. Get him into some debates against his opponent. They would have no chance against against him


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Agreed. He doesnt get flustered/triggered. Trumps petty douchebag behavior would have no effect. Petes intellect would shine and make trumps lack of intellect more apparent.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
The only issue with Pete is he’s gay and is married to another man. I’m genuinely curious if that turns off enough voters in key electoral college states? It’s sad how aiming for winning a handful of states replaces the aim of winning the most amount of votes. But thanks to the electoral college, it disproportionally empowers the minority. In this case, it disproportionately empowers the bigots and homophobes.

Imagine how much better off both parties, especially the GOP, would be if they had to compete for the popular vote rather than just juice their base in key states. Dubya and Trump would’ve never happened if Repubs had to appeal the the majority of the country instead of getting Cleutus in some trailer park in Ohio pissed off over trans CRT lovin kids who use the Bible as kitty litter while takin a knee on the flag.
 
Last edited:

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
The only issue with Pete is he’s gay and is married to another man. I’m genuinely curious if that turns off enough voters in key electoral college states? It’s sad how aiming for winning a handful of states replaces the aim of winning the most amount of votes. But thanks to the electoral college, it disproportionally empowers the minority. In this case, it disproportionately empowers the bigots and homophobes.

Imagine how much better off both parties, especially the GOP, would be if they had to compete for the popular vote rather than just juice their base in key states. Dubya and Trump would’ve never happened if Repubs had to appeal the the majority of the country instead of getting Cleutus in some trailer park in Ohio pissed off over trans CRT lovin kids who use the Bible as kitty litter while takin a knee on the flag.
Key states like Florida and Texas, you mean? Two of the most populous states that regularly support republicans? Why not just say that you want California to always be the state that decides the presidency? That would be more intellectually honest at least.

That was part of the intent of the electoral college in the first place, the intent that the most populous states didn't just run rough-shod over the less-populous states by giving the smaller states a proportional voice with a minimum representation level, rather than states like Wyoming and Utah being swallowed entirely by California, even though they pretty much are already. As it is, it is still very imperfect but it kind of accomplishes the goal of letting Cletus have the same voice as any of the Kardashians, regardless of where they live.

I do agree that the electoral college is not really what we need right now though. The electoral college doesn't necessarily do what it was designed to do, other than the part about keeping the voting public separate from actually electing the president, but protecting smaller states was part of the intent at least. If we are going to replace it, we need something that affords such protections in its place, hopefully better than it is now.


One way to balance this out would be a mandate that in each state the number of electors assigned to a given candidate reflects the percentage of the state that voted for that candidate. So in California, where there are 55 electoral votes, let's say the vote is split 55%/45% for Candidates A and B. In this case, Candidate A would get 30 electoral votes and Candidate B would get 25. But in most states it is a winner takes all situation. So if we just changed this one thing, it would balance better to the popular vote. That is one way to make it more closely tied to the popular vote while still protecting the smaller states somewhat.

But unfortunately for things like freedom of speech and free and open elections to actually work you have to accept that people will say things, and vote for things, you may disagree with. Sure it would be nice for a ruling class of self-aggrandizing elites to decide what the government should be, but that would be an aristocracy/oligarchy, not a democracy, and not a place I would want to live.
 

The Thriller

Well-Known Member
Key states like Florida and Texas, you mean? Two of the most populous states that regularly support republicans? Why not just say that you want California to always be the state that decides the presidency? That would be more intellectually honest at least.

That was part of the intent of the electoral college in the first place, the intent that the most populous states didn't just run rough-shod over the less-populous states by giving the smaller states a proportional voice with a minimum representation level, rather than states like Wyoming and Utah being swallowed entirely by California, even though they pretty much are already. As it is, it is still very imperfect but it kind of accomplishes the goal of letting Cletus have the same voice as any of the Kardashians, regardless of where they live.

I do agree that the electoral college is not really what we need right now though. The electoral college doesn't necessarily do what it was designed to do, other than the part about keeping the voting public separate from actually electing the president, but protecting smaller states was part of the intent at least. If we are going to replace it, we need something that affords such protections in its place, hopefully better than it is now.


One way to balance this out would be a mandate that in each state the number of electors assigned to a given candidate reflects the percentage of the state that voted for that candidate. So in California, where there are 55 electoral votes, let's say the vote is split 55%/45% for Candidates A and B. In this case, Candidate A would get 30 electoral votes and Candidate B would get 25. But in most states it is a winner takes all situation. So if we just changed this one thing, it would balance better to the popular vote. That is one way to make it more closely tied to the popular vote while still protecting the smaller states somewhat.

But unfortunately for things like freedom of speech and free and open elections to actually work you have to accept that people will say things, and vote for things, you may disagree with. Sure it would be nice for a ruling class of self-aggrandizing elites to decide what the government should be, but that would be an aristocracy/oligarchy, not a democracy, and not a place I would want to live.
Texas and Florida aren’t swing states. I’m talking about PA, Ohio, and Michigan. It makes it so these states matter much more than others. Which sucks because I’d rather have candidates compete for votes everywhere; conservatives in CA and liberals on WY.

I think we’ve seen very recently how the EC upends our democracy to empower an oligarchy. Again, we don’t get Bush and Trump, arguably the two most authoritarian and arguably most illiberal presidents in this country’s history, without the anti-democratic EC. Worst of all, it incentivizes extremism. Juice up the base in key swing states and hammer through the most extremist agenda as possible before midterms rather than incentivize popular and moderate candidates and policies.
 


Top