https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeBiden/comments/jr7q8c/great_video_of_fox_fkn_news_cutting_away_from/

Even Fox News is now trying to cut back on this bullshit... Not good for the party.

My message to all Trump supporters.........

You're right. It's all rigged. So don't vote anymore, especially if you live in Georgia. Just stay home. Don't wait in line for hours when your vote won't be counted. 

Based on people I've worked for, I actually don't think this is normal.

You mean Al Gore.  Bob Dole was a Republican and lost to Clinton for his second term (1996).

The irony is that what you consider a "compromise" position in America would be considered right wing in the UK. Even the Tories wouldn't defund the NHS (though they have no issue cutting as much of it as they can without ripping it to bits). 

My issue is that people will sooner or later start wondering if this is due to a party being great or the country being undemocratic. I mean, we have people who don't consider a "dominant party" state to be a democracy (like Russia or Turkey. Both are "democracies"; they just undermine the other parties in such ways that they either end up unelectable or people are afraid to join them. For a less debatable example, Bolivia and the MAS). I mean, people would suspect foul play at some point. 

On the other hand, many of you believe that abolishing first past the post will lead to third parties growing stronger. Your position is that FPTP is what's causing bipartisanship and not the other way around. Neither can truly prove this but I honestly hope you're right. 

1. Well, a true non-winner takes all system (proportional representation) often depends on more than two parties. In those countries where it doesn't, it has often led to fragmentation of the vote and ruling through a coalition system but only after several snap elections (case in point, Spain. It was like the US until PODEMOS and then Vox). 

2. The issue is that you're ignoring the fact there's a large amount of our world that isn't in the big four blocks and they stand out to lose more because if they join one block, the others will dogpile on them. This notion that the world needs a "leader" and that leader needs to be the leader of a state instead of a natural citizen is what troubles me. More so the idea that the US would sooner help Europe than the far more needy countries immediately beneath them with far more potential to free... while at the same time acting with Europe to halt China's advance, therefore leaving a whole region devoid of a benefitial arragement they won't provide and do not wish others to provide. My approach was more along the lines of countries creating their own allies and keeping them close instead of allying with someone who clearly does not need the help. 

My concern is mostly because in the current situation, Trump does stuff and Europe has to clean it up. In the event where things go back to being more global in a way, we have a country that can intimidate others into compliance instead of telling them they will do something and they are free to join: in the latter scenario, the damage is still being done, but the second actor can throw you off a cliff and tell you to go fuck yourself. I honestly wait eagerly for the day Europe sends this kind of message over the Atlantic to show the fact that they don't have to do everything the US says. Also, this is why I liked Trump's bridge burning: it's telling the whole continent that they shouldn't trust blindly or support everything they do and there should be no preferential treatment when there are countries which require better treatment otherwise. 

Finally, I'm not trying to justify the continued existence of the Republican Party or Donald Trump, but of an alternative party the accepted party to keep their power in check. When a party takes or stays in power for too long and has commanding majorities, no one can restrain them. Similarly, a party that is fighting the Democratic Party for the same votes would just be the same shit in a different guise. The US needs a party that decisively swings to the left or right of the DP in other to be considered an "alternative" and truly "the opposition"... or otherwise you end with the political circus of Spain where right wing parties are agreeing with a socialist government and the only party that objects is considered far-right... so there's no place for people with objections. 

I've been arguing in favor of a parliamentary US since forever but nobody listens because parliamentarism is too "European". Whatever the hell that means. 

To be honest, white supremacists having someone to vote for doesn't trouble me since they would vote for someone even without support. What troubles me is pandering in general. You have your own platform. Using it to pander to someone, anyone is only going to wind up making a lot of people feel miserable. 

Also, the vaccine wouldn't have changed jack all because most people had voted by then. If the vaccine had appeared in Summer, then maybe it would've turned the race around. I mean, it is big news. 

OTOH, the Pfizer vaccine hasn't been extensively tested, so it's no different to the AstraZeneca crap. 

Both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are undergoing the standard 3-Phase human trials. They are being tested on thousands of people as per protocol, they simply haven't quite finished the final stage yet.

I want to base it on the same mechanism as the UK. That way if the Democratic Party wins, at least the countryside will still have the ability to frustrate or reject the President's moves and even start motions of no confidence and trigger snap elections if the President does something that goes too far. 

Like, I really don't think the proportional EC would end up being a terrible idea after all: moreover, if you can replace the PM simply by having the party replace the leader, it opens the door for internal party reform since a party's control of the government is based on internal cohesion. It's this I like. 

Simply put, the people will vote on whoever helps them locally and that party's leader gets to rule. If you vote for someone in your backyard, why would you support someone completely different in office. That's extremely hypocritical regardless of how abhorrent the leader is. 

For the record, it would probably be the House instead of the Senate (since it's the lower chamber that chooses the PM, but given how the House of Lords work it could genuinely be either). I am more of a party of dividing a state into constituencies with a set number of people. Every X amount of people creates a new constituency and whoever wins the popular vote there stays in the bench. 

Well, you see... this wouldn't make a lick of sense in this thread. Why would the Pfizer vaccine change the election when the AZ one didn't. Trump would've needed a vaccine rolled out by June if he wanted to win. 

Pity he didn't have the foresight to go full China on initial quarantine controls. If he had the economy should have taken him upwards... instead, he decided to ape Sweden, where most people would self distance and isolate unlike the US. 

Also, I have no clue why people are acting like I'm a Trump supporter when I was the mastermind behind a plot to send Mariachis to the WH to serenade him during his defeat (and am well aware he was defeated and was aware as early as Wednesday... even going as far as telling people preparing for doomsday when he was ahead that the election was far from wrapped up). He does have options. Whether they work or not is not my business. 

I just... feel the US is shafted no matter what happens since socialism (read: decent human and social services for all) is going to pretty much be slain by guillotine instead of leading the cavalry against Trump. I cross my fingers AOC ends up fed up enough to at some point tell the rest of the party to go fuck themselves and the DSA formally registers early 2024... or the Dixiecrats get violently ejected during a power struggle. 

It's just after seeing Bernie essentially have the deck stacked against him twice, I lost all hope for a leftward lurch in US politics and feel anything at this point is just going to be a smokescreen. 

I forgot for a moment it was a thread about the US election and was simply responding to these vaccines being called "crap" that "hasn't been extensively tested." They are being extensively tested, with good results so far, that's all I meant.