By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Official 2020 US Presidential Election Thread

sundin13 on 07 November 2020
gergroy said:
sundin13 said:

The Republican Party has fallen behind in many aspects because they fail to represent the will of the people. If the system were to change to a popular vote system, perhaps they would be forced to change to better represent the people. Even still, why should we care that the party that isn't able to represent the people isn't elected as President (as others have stated, Congress wouldn't change under a popular vote system).

Besides, why is it literally anyone's problem but the Republicans that their platform is unable to secure votes? 

It really wouldn’t take that many tweaks to their platform to make them palatable to the electorate.  Removing trump and his strategy of insulting and demeaning half of America would go a long way.  Changing their immigration stance would also go a long way. Stuff like that.

The core message of the Republican Party of limited government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility (if they remember that message) still resonates with a lot of people obviously.  

Yeah, the only reason it feels like such a leap is because of how broken the party is. All they really need to do is accept reality and reframe with consistency from that viewpoint and they have a pretty strong base. Right now they are just so twisted into knots trying to justify the decisions that have been made that they have no coherent platform beyond (ironically) "Socialist man bad". 



Around the Network
AsGryffynn on 07 November 2020
RolStoppable said:
AsGryffynn said:

You think there would be more red votes in a state like California if the EC was abolished? I don't think so. Any abolition of first by the post needs to be followed or go in tandem with the dissolution of one or both parties into three or four smaller parties. It's the only way to prevent de facto permanent Democratic Party control. 

A proper democratic election system would allow additional parties to become viable, so it's not like the DNC or GOP would have to be split up. That's the beauty of democracy: Your scenario of permanent DNC control can only be realistic if the DNC keeps earning it. So the two outcomes you face are that either the DNC won't have permanent control or that they are deserving of having permanent control.

AsGryffynn said:
RolStoppable said:
European leaders seem to be satisfied with Biden winning, but they know that not much will change. "America first" will remain a thing, although Biden's interpretation will truly be "America first", not Trump's "America alone" which it was in reality.

Here's the major reason for my opposition: I'd rather have America in a time out than throwing their weight around. The only advantage is that European leaders are already used to misinterpreting/outright playing with America in order to stop their more destructive impulses. 

Hoping that things don't really go back to the "Trans-Atlantic Relationship" and Europe tells Biden the bridge was burned and they aren't rebuilding it. Tell them to focus on the stuff in their own backyard before leaping the sea. 

The more posts of yours that I read, the more do I get the impression that your biggest reason is that you don't know what you are talking about.

1. Wouldn't have that happened by now? The only exception I can think of is Ross Perot who could have become a credible threat if he hadn't dropped out temporarily. Out of sheer curiosity for how Americans see at the ground level, how likely do you think it is? 

2. Man, do I always hear this argument from the same people. Then I ask and the answer I get is "you find out". No, enough deflecting. Either explain yourself or GTFO because my argument is sound: the world is too big, diverse and divergent to be swayed by the decisions of a single country... and said country should care more about what happens close to home than far away from it. I know in Europe they are used to dealing with America's shit, leaders like Merkel and the like can work around some of their shit. Trump being unpredictable made that extremely hard for them and now at least that is somewhat easy, but the notion that they need to stay close to you guys is beyond me at this point? Why? 

I honestly hope Macron's call for Europe to shove everyone else off pays off and Europe doesn't go back to "business as usual" because that business is grating. 



sundin13 on 07 November 2020
AsGryffynn said:

Because you have a two party system where they are the closest team to a viable one? The whole point of representative democracy is that most parties can win with less than 50 percent of the vote so long as they have a plurality. In a two party system where one party is clearly unelectable, you're going to have a de facto one party state. That's not really a good way to shore up the democracy argument. 

The effort would have to be conditioned to a restructuring of politics in the US. Both parties get nuked, because America can't move on until truly representative, non catch all parties emerge. I don't think the Green Party stands a chance to win the popular vote just because there's no EV. Or would you rather the US end up like Russia, where victories are the result of everything else being unelectable? 

You do know that parties can change, right? Like, Republicans aren't stuck with their bad platform until the end of time. If they wanted to, they could just change it, but they haven't because they don't have to. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the parties will remain as they are now forever, but as soon as the Republicans see that they cannon win with their current platform, they would change it. That result would be better for the country and our democracy than just giving them a handicap so they can hold onto their shitty politics AND their power at the same time. 



AsGryffynn on 07 November 2020
sundin13 said:
AsGryffynn said:

Because you have a two party system where they are the closest team to a viable one? The whole point of representative democracy is that most parties can win with less than 50 percent of the vote so long as they have a plurality. In a two party system where one party is clearly unelectable, you're going to have a de facto one party state. That's not really a good way to shore up the democracy argument. 

The effort would have to be conditioned to a restructuring of politics in the US. Both parties get nuked, because America can't move on until truly representative, non catch all parties emerge. I don't think the Green Party stands a chance to win the popular vote just because there's no EV. Or would you rather the US end up like Russia, where victories are the result of everything else being unelectable? 

You do know that parties can change, right? Like, Republicans aren't stuck with their bad platform until the end of time. If they wanted to, they could just change it, but they haven't because they don't have to. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the parties will remain as they are now forever, but as soon as the Republicans see that they cannon win with their current platform, they would change it. That result would be better for the country and our democracy than just giving them a handicap so they can hold onto their shitty politics AND their power at the same time. 

You don't solve the bipartisanship though. I really want to see what happens if a third party rolls along in an EC-less US. 



IcaroRibeiro on 07 November 2020
gergroy said:

The core message of the Republican Party of limited government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility (if they remember that message) still resonates with a lot of people obviously.  

Some friend sent me those prints last Tuesday/Wednesday. I'm not sure if they are real, but if this is what Fox News public supports then I don't know what is the reason they're still supporting Reps

Maybe anti socialist propaganda on USA went too far, after decades of phantom menace most of citizens they don't trust any left-wing party policies anymore. On this forum you can say many fellow Americans deeming every social policy as socialism, even basic ones like healthcare. It's a concern I cannot understand 

 



Around the Network
sundin13 on 07 November 2020
AsGryffynn said:
sundin13 said:

You do know that parties can change, right? Like, Republicans aren't stuck with their bad platform until the end of time. If they wanted to, they could just change it, but they haven't because they don't have to. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the parties will remain as they are now forever, but as soon as the Republicans see that they cannon win with their current platform, they would change it. That result would be better for the country and our democracy than just giving them a handicap so they can hold onto their shitty politics AND their power at the same time. 

You don't solve the bipartisanship though. I really want to see what happens if a third party rolls along in an EC-less US. 

I'm not sure why that has anything to do with the question at hand. Switching to a popular vote doesn't make this worse. If anything it makes it better because it forces the Republican party to move forward. There are other solutions to this issue, but the EC is not one of them so I'm not sure why it should be held up as a reason not to switch to the popular vote...



JWeinCom on 07 November 2020

Joe Biden is so senile that he forgot the part of the speech where he insults everyone.



jason1637 on 07 November 2020

Great speech by Biden. Lets see how the next 4 years work out.



SvennoJ on 07 November 2020

Did they forget to tell him about the fireworks or streamers. He jumped like he was getting shot at. Also is he deaf or not trusting electronics, shouting the whole speech.



Louie_86 on 07 November 2020

Just watched Biden's speech. Welcome back to the civilized world, USA.