2020 US Elections

Status
Not open for further replies.
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Errrr . . . Well, there’s a “I refuse to vote” community and a “I can’t vote” community. The latter can be broken down between an “I can’t vote yet” community (like my kids) and an “I can’t ever vote” community. The last is totally irrelevant — nothing they say matters. The others both parties absolutely should and do pay attention to, and probably need to pay more attention to.

The poster you reference is in the irrelevant category. His opinion is totally irrelevant. There are no consequences to whatever he thinks or believes about the US, so he can make up whatever bullshit he wants about how to solve everything his way with not a whit of care for the impact on anyone. Must be nice.

Regardless, anyone of those groups — anyone period — might believe this isn’t a moral choice. They’re wrong, of course, but not necessarily because they aren’t moral. I could have said some of those who don’t see this as a moral choice are idiots, or uneducated, and others are too lazy to do any homework. Actually, I HAVE said that, about 1,000 times.

It’s always at least one of those.
Click to expand...
Well to get things in perspective it was me who picked it up wrong.
I was crossing two separate arguments in two separate threads, which is very easy to do in here.
I clearly thought the morally questionable in your reply were not so much those that choose not to vote, but those (from another thread) that choose not to see the moral issue between the two candidates.

My bad.

Having got answers from yourself and CB about the voting process and how complicated it is, I would think it is just another disencouraging factor for those that are already not being encouraged to vote.
Added to the difficulties put in front of some sections of your electorate to actually partake, I wouldn’t necessarily brand these people as thick or immoral.
I’m sure there are those that do fall into the lazy or uninformed category too.

All the more impressive to see the lines of people queuing for hours to exercise their right. It is shameful however that they should have to.
 
Bigga said:
Aww, well I'm glad the Wall St guy 'doubles down' on his belief that the non-voter is not moral.

Nowt like being looked down upon, eh...?
Click to expand...
I’ve answered Foggy separately so I’ll do the same for you.

I got the two issues mixed as you can see from my answer to him.
My bad.

However I don’t see how you can take this personally about you when you don have a vote so don’t have a say in this whether you choose to vote or not, in your own country.

Between the two threads on the subject of the morality issue in this election, Ive formed my own impression of what Foggy means and I think you are taking something over personally considering you don’t fall into the demographic he is talking about.

There again I could be picking this up wrong again. I’m not absolute in my certainty.
 
Last edited:
mancity2012_eamo said:
I’ve answered Foggy separately so I’ll do the same for you.

I got the two issues mixed as you can see from my answer to him.
My bad.

However I don’t see how you can take this personally about you when you don have a vote so don’t have a say in this whether you choose to vote or not, in your own country.

Between the two threads on the subject of the morality issue in this election, Ive formed my own impression of what Foggy means and I think you are taking something over personally considering you don’t fall into the demographic he is talking about.

There again I could be picking this up wrong again. I’m not absolute in my certainty of mind.
Click to expand...
You're correct, I don't have a vote.

This shouldn't stop me from having an opinion as consistent as I do on UK politics, which I do. Furthermore, if the bleating rich man has a problem with me having an opinion on US politics and the state of the underclass, he should request the thread be removed.

So, as I see it, if he's willing to malign myself who has a common viewpoint with those disillusioned with politicians that have done fuck all for them since the 40s, then he obviously sees those left behind as 'immoral', which he has explained twice. Clearly.

As a working class Black man, with family over in the States and who listens to Black Progressive voices in the US, I am very much his 'target of ire'. I can understand why people like Ice Cube are no longer expectant of the Dems to keep their 'promises' as they've had decades to do it, so having a discussion with #45 is going to be no skin off his nose at this point.

This has been a forced direction and again, not understood by those criticising the 2016 result as to why the US have this current president.

Consistently. Broken. Promises.
 
cjn said:
What does his job have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you can't see how someone who can AFFORD to say what he says about people who are struggling/ left out/ disillusioned over the state of politics that affect them, is tone deaf.

There's quite a few on here, actually, that are in similar in toning telling people to 'shut up and fall in line'.

Interesting.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
Well to get things in perspective it was me who picked it up wrong.
I was crossing two separate arguments in two separate threads, which is very easy to do in here.
I clearly thought the morally questionable in your reply were not so much those that choose not to vote, but those (from another thread) that choose not to see the moral issue between the two candidates.

My bad.

Having got answers from yourself and CB about the voting process and how complicated it is, I would think it is just another disencouraging factor for those that are already not being encouraged to vote.
Added to the difficulties put in front of some sections of your electorate to actually partake, I wouldn’t necessarily brand these people as thick or immoral.
I’m sure there are those that do fall into the lazy or uninformed category too.

All the more impressive to see the lines of people queuing for hours to exercise their right. It is shameful however that they should have to.
Click to expand...
Citizenship is work, mate. Some people choose to do it. Some people don’t. Some people have no time because they’re just trying to survive. Others don’t understand the responsibility of it. Mostly — and this is what’s seemed to change suddenly — people take it for granted. I couldn’t agree more with your last paragraph!
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
Given up on "when they go low..."?

That does make it harder to take a high moral tone about the Trump ad taking Fauci out of context.

Good fun though.
Click to expand...
The Democrats are going high when the Trump team goes low.

The Lincoln Project (who are Trump-hating GOP types) aren’t abiding by that pledge. They never made it. They are happy to hammer the fertilizer out of Trump blow for ugly blow.

It also helps that they are smarter, angrier and funnier than Trump’s team.
 
Trump's town hall: a woman, blonde hair, just told him "Mr. President, you have a great smile." He smirked, he loved it, it's made his day, and he'll be jerking off to it tonight. I think I'm about to throw up.
 
Vic said:
Given up on "when they go low..."?

That does make it harder to take a high moral tone about the Trump ad taking Fauci out of context.

Good fun though.
Click to expand...
That’s not Biden’s campaign mate.

That’s the Lincoln Project, they are ALL Republicans that hate Trump. It’s a conglomerate of GOP campaign managers, pollsters, political activists that can’t abide Trump and they use their skill set as such.
 
Bigga said:
From the outside, most of us have seen this CB, that it's quite an antiquated and inflexible voting system, despite being a so-called 'living document'.

It seems to me both parties have found this system beneficial... until it isn't. And I would say, no matter who wins, this system won't be changed. Both parties have held majorities in both houses to change something, so it's not just a Republican issue and that would be a false assumption.

I suppose the question is why hasn't anyone changed it?

Especially when the US constitution has amendments to it all the time.

It would be interesting to read your thoughts on it as it puzzles me about the usage of a flawed system.
Click to expand...
Simple...use the popular vote!

We already have Congress, which is a corruption of the democratic process by providing 2 senators for each state, no matter how populous or not. In addition, Senate approval is required for laws to be passed, with the VP being the 50-50 tie-breaker, and Senate approval is required for the Federal Judiciary, so small states already have an overweight presence in American Government.

Lastly, the Federal Govt is supposed to be a limited body, with ultimate government control supposedly falling to your State Legislature, so it makes sense that the head of the NATION should rest on a NATIONAL “ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE” election.

The Electoral College could be seen as a “national” election if we went back to a growing House, based on population growth, and simply removed the two “extra” EC votes given for each Senate seat, but we stopped growing the House and gerrymandering has taken over, as the post-Census preference for securing power for the next decade...and even the Census has been hyper-political this year of a global pandemic (resulting in a lawsuit to STOP THE COUNT!).

• Simple democratic vote for the President.
• Keep the two Senators per State.
• Update the House with a maximum population per Representative It used to be 50,000 people per seat, but that might needed changing! Maybe transition to 750,000 per seat initially
• Use a population & Lat-Long based map for the House, to create the “squarest” House map possible to reduce gerrymandering.

Those are “top of my head” thoughts. I’m sure there will be pushback and look forward to the thoughts of others.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Simple...use the popular vote!

We already have Congress, which is a corruption of the democratic process by providing 2 senators for each state, no matter how populous or not. In addition, Senate approval is required for laws to be passed, with the VP being the 50-50 tie-breaker, and Senate approval is required for the Federal Judiciary, so small states already have an overweight presence in American Government.

Lastly, the Federal Govt is supposed to be a limited body, with ultimate government control supposedly falling to your State Legislature, so it makes sense that the head of the NATION should rest on a NATIONAL “ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE” election.

The Electoral College could be seen as a “national” election if we went back to a growing House, based on population growth, and simply removed the two “extra” EC votes given for each Senate seat, but we stopped growing the House and gerrymandering has taken over, as the post-Census preference for securing power for the next decade...and even the Census has been hyper-political this year of a global pandemic (resulting in a lawsuit to STOP THE COUNT!).

• Simple democratic vote for the President.
• Keep the two Senators per State.
• Update the House with a maximum population per Representative It used to be 50,000 people per seat, but that might needed changing! Maybe transition to 750,000 per seat initially
• Use a population & Lat-Long based map for the House, to create the “squarest” House map possible to reduce gerrymandering.

Those are “top of my head” thoughts. I’m sure there will be pushback and look forward to the thoughts of others.
Click to expand...
Much appreciated for the response. An interesting read.

What are your thoughts on Maine's shift to 'ranked-choice voting', its benefits and pitfalls. Taking that into consideration, would it be worth it to go nationwide with that system?

Cheers, CB.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top