‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Voting

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5310
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
25 August 2019 08:54
 
Garret - 25 August 2019 08:37 AM

If laws and policies that got more people to vote would be bad for one party, that means that that party does not represent the will of the country.

Word to this.

Neither party has demonstrated a desire to represent the people or indeed its own constituents. Mitch McConnell is so comfortable with the fix that he frequently brags about it on camera.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7155
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
25 August 2019 09:55
 
Jan_CAN - 25 August 2019 08:18 AM

While doing an online search for more information about the U.S. Electoral College, I came across the following article.  It’s several years old, but does provide some simple and basic information; the section on “Election Day and the Electoral College” of particular interest.

The American election explained
https://site.macleans.ca/interactives/electionExplained/index_01.html

Notice the very-right bias of both US parties in that article?

Now that David Koch has passed, I wonder if there will be a change in the various thinky-tanky policies pushed out by the Koch’s collective political agencies.  I wonder if Charles has any significantly different views from those of his now absent brother.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
25 August 2019 11:33
 
Jefe - 25 August 2019 09:55 AM
Jan_CAN - 25 August 2019 08:18 AM

While doing an online search for more information about the U.S. Electoral College, I came across the following article.  It’s several years old, but does provide some simple and basic information; the section on “Election Day and the Electoral College” of particular interest.

The American election explained
https://site.macleans.ca/interactives/electionExplained/index_01.html

Notice the very-right bias of both US parties in that article?

Now that David Koch has passed, I wonder if there will be a change in the various thinky-tanky policies pushed out by the Koch’s collective political agencies.  I wonder if Charles has any significantly different views from those of his now absent brother.

Yes, I did notice the right bias for both parties; it’s always seemed to me that Canada’s (and many European countries) centre line is left of the U.S.’s.  However, perhaps there are changes afoot, with several of the Democrat candidates sounding quite ‘lefty’ in American terms.  But then again, the polls favouring Biden seem to indicate a desire to return to the previous status quo.  If he does get elected, one could hope that there has been enough of a (youth-driven?) left push to bring about some positive changes (e.g. attention to climate change, gun control legislation, improved health care).

[ Edited: 25 August 2019 11:40 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6962
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
25 August 2019 12:17
 

Here’s a podcast from Freakonomics that seems apropos: America’s Hidden Duopoly

We all know our political system is “broken” — but what if that’s not true? Some say the Republicans and Democrats constitute a wildly successful industry that has colluded to kill off competition, stifle reform, and drive the country apart.

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1477
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
25 August 2019 12:29
 

To further understand American politics, one has to take into account the ugliness called “Dark Money,” which secretly funnels millions of dollars to primarily conservative candidates. Dark Money is the most recent, secret force of corruption in American politics. The Koch brothers were masters at using it. It was injected into US politics by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/basics

Biden, as a politician, is simply more of the same — a kind, grandfatherly presence who will keep the status quo which favors political corruption and oligarchy. No real change will occur under a Biden presidency. The extreme rightward shift of this country will remain as it is. But, at least he wouldn’t be outright crazy like Trump, which is weak praise.

I think Sanders, or more likely, Elizabeth Warren, are what this country needs now. We need a fighter; someone not afraid to stand up for what they believe and to speak truth to power. Being a moderate Democrat, in my opinion, is to be an ineffectual and passive collaborator with the corrupt system that we have have.

Former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has a quote which I like. It was in response to Michelle Obama’s comment about Republican dirty tricks: “When they go low, we go high.”

Holder countered: “No. No. When they go low, we kick them.”

It’s time to start kicking.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18127
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2019 12:34
 

You guys are funny! “PEOPLE” voted for Trump, but you set here with conspiracy after conspiracy theory about how it wasn’t the “PEOPLE’S” fault.

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1477
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
25 August 2019 12:41
 
GAD - 25 August 2019 12:34 PM

You guys are funny! “PEOPLE” voted for Trump, but you set here with conspiracy after conspiracy theory about how it wasn’t the “PEOPLE’S” fault.

3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18127
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2019 12:45
 
Cheshire Cat - 25 August 2019 12:41 PM
GAD - 25 August 2019 12:34 PM

You guys are funny! “PEOPLE” voted for Trump, but you set here with conspiracy after conspiracy theory about how it wasn’t the “PEOPLE’S” fault.

3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.

That is how the game is played, for either side, period! Cheering when you win and crying it’s wrong when you lose is BULLSHIT!

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6962
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
25 August 2019 13:15
 
Cheshire Cat - 25 August 2019 12:29 PM

To further understand American politics, one has to take into account the ugliness called “Dark Money,” which secretly funnels millions of dollars to primarily conservative candidates. Dark Money is the most recent, secret force of corruption in American politics. The Koch brothers were masters at using it. It was injected into US politics by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

And yet, Hillary outspent Trump nearly two to one in the 2016 campaign: $1.2 billion vs. $600 million. There are other examples. Joe Crowley outspent AOC eighteen to one but lost to her in the primary. Meg Whitman outspent Jerry Brown ten to one in the 2014 California gubernatorial race but lost anyway.

I agree that in general, there’s a correlation between campaign spending and winning elections. But given the counterexamples, does the correlation necessarily imply causation?

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1477
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
25 August 2019 13:19
 
GAD - 25 August 2019 12:45 PM
Cheshire Cat - 25 August 2019 12:41 PM
GAD - 25 August 2019 12:34 PM

You guys are funny! “PEOPLE” voted for Trump, but you set here with conspiracy after conspiracy theory about how it wasn’t the “PEOPLE’S” fault.

3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.

That is how the game is played, for either side, period! Cheering when you win and crying it’s wrong when you lose is BULLSHIT!

That’s true, if it was a level playing field.

In the case of Trump vs. Clinton, there was a lot of cheating going on, and not on the Clinton side.

Trump was the underdog, and being a man without morals, fighting dirty was just fine with him. Trump hired the services of Cambridge Analytica, a company that hacked the Facebook accounts of voters in battleground states, used psychological profiles to manipulated them with fear-based pro-Trump ads,  then erased those ads after being viewed.

And, of course, there’s the influence of Russian hackers working for Putin to basically use similar techniques to influence people to vote for Trump.

There’s no way to quantify what effect this had on the election, but I’d say it would be foolish and naive to say there was no effect, especially in those targeted battleground states where the race was tight.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5310
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
25 August 2019 13:25
 
Cheshire Cat - 25 August 2019 12:29 PM

To further understand American politics, one has to take into account the ugliness called “Dark Money,” which secretly funnels millions of dollars to primarily conservative candidates. Dark Money is the most recent, secret force of corruption in American politics. The Koch brothers were masters at using it. It was injected into US politics by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/basics

Biden, as a politician, is simply more of the same — a kind, grandfatherly presence who will keep the status quo which favors political corruption and oligarchy. No real change will occur under a Biden presidency. The extreme rightward shift of this country will remain as it is. But, at least he wouldn’t be outright crazy like Trump, which is weak praise.

I think Sanders, or more likely, Elizabeth Warren, are what this country needs now. We need a fighter; someone not afraid to stand up for what they believe and to speak truth to power. Being a moderate Democrat, in my opinion, is to be an ineffectual and passive collaborator with the corrupt system that we have have.

Former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has a quote which I like. It was in response to Michelle Obama’s comment about Republican dirty tricks: “When they go low, we go high.”

Holder countered: “No. No. When they go low, we kick them.”

It’s time to start kicking.

I agree. But I also understand that a conviction President will be expensive. Changing a system as fundamentally corrupt as this one will involve breaking a lot of eggs. Such a President will be risking their life to challenge the deep state and the corporate hegemony. The fact that so many people perceived Trump as some kind of righteous maverick should highlight the real gravity of the challenge ahead. We have some unity in our dissatisfaction with the status quo but a cooperative vision among working people is sorely lacking. An issue which should unite us has divided us worse than ever… in my adult lifetime anyway. The real work starts AFTER a true progressive is elected.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  18127
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
25 August 2019 13:28
 
Cheshire Cat - 25 August 2019 01:19 PM
GAD - 25 August 2019 12:45 PM
Cheshire Cat - 25 August 2019 12:41 PM
GAD - 25 August 2019 12:34 PM

You guys are funny! “PEOPLE” voted for Trump, but you set here with conspiracy after conspiracy theory about how it wasn’t the “PEOPLE’S” fault.

3 million more people voted for Clinton than for Trump.

That is how the game is played, for either side, period! Cheering when you win and crying it’s wrong when you lose is BULLSHIT!

That’s true, if it was a level playing field.

In the case of Trump vs. Clinton, there was a lot of cheating going on, and not on the Clinton side.

Trump was the underdog, and being a man without morals, fighting dirty was just fine with him. Trump hired the services of Cambridge Analytica, a company that hacked the Facebook accounts of voters in battleground states, used psychological profiles to manipulated them with fear-based pro-Trump ads,  then erased those ads after being viewed.

And, of course, there’s the influence of Russian hackers working for Putin to basically use similar techniques to influence people to vote for Trump.

There’s no way to quantify what effect this had on the election, but I’d say it would be foolish and naive to say there was no effect, especially in those targeted battleground states where the race was tight.

And yet the “PEOPLE” voted for Trump. If the criteria of who the “PEOPLE” vote for is who manipulates them the most then Trump simply beat the the Dems.

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1477
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
25 August 2019 13:44
 
GAD - 25 August 2019 01:28 PM

And yet the “PEOPLE” voted for Trump. If the criteria of who the “PEOPLE” vote for is who manipulates them the most then Trump simply beat the the Dems.

Not so fast.

A foreign nation, Russia, for the first time ever, used illegal means to pick Trump as our president. That’s a huge difference.

And Cambridge Analytica goes far beyond using the usual run-of-mill advertising bombardment we have become used to; it takes us into a shadowy underworld of psychological manipulation and spy-like deceit.

But, hey, I do get your point.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
25 August 2019 13:47
 
Brick Bungalow - 25 August 2019 08:54 AM
Garret - 25 August 2019 08:37 AM

If laws and policies that got more people to vote would be bad for one party, that means that that party does not represent the will of the country.

Word to this.

Neither party has demonstrated a desire to represent the people or indeed its own constituents. Mitch McConnell is so comfortable with the fix that he frequently brags about it on camera.

I agree in a way, but not how you’re thinking.

The Republicans are truly a minority in the country, and an ideological minority can’t represent the views of the majority.  It’s impossible by definition.  One interesting thing though is that the Republican coalition is largely made up of people who are resistant to change.  Saying no to change is an easy way to appease their coalition and remain fairly consistent.

The Democratic coalition contains a lot of variety though, and sometimes appealing to one group within the coalition either is contradictory to the goals of another group, or can feel like other groups are being ignored.  Democratic leadership then defaults to watered down compromises that do very little to help anyone, or end up as “centrist-business-friendly” versions.

The two parties are quite different, and deal with different internal forces that push them in their own directions.

 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1477
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
25 August 2019 13:52
 
Brick Bungalow - 25 August 2019 01:25 PM
Cheshire Cat - 25 August 2019 12:29 PM

To further understand American politics, one has to take into account the ugliness called “Dark Money,” which secretly funnels millions of dollars to primarily conservative candidates. Dark Money is the most recent, secret force of corruption in American politics. The Koch brothers were masters at using it. It was injected into US politics by the conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/basics

Biden, as a politician, is simply more of the same — a kind, grandfatherly presence who will keep the status quo which favors political corruption and oligarchy. No real change will occur under a Biden presidency. The extreme rightward shift of this country will remain as it is. But, at least he wouldn’t be outright crazy like Trump, which is weak praise.

I think Sanders, or more likely, Elizabeth Warren, are what this country needs now. We need a fighter; someone not afraid to stand up for what they believe and to speak truth to power. Being a moderate Democrat, in my opinion, is to be an ineffectual and passive collaborator with the corrupt system that we have have.

Former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has a quote which I like. It was in response to Michelle Obama’s comment about Republican dirty tricks: “When they go low, we go high.”

Holder countered: “No. No. When they go low, we kick them.”

It’s time to start kicking.

I agree. But I also understand that a conviction President will be expensive. Changing a system as fundamentally corrupt as this one will involve breaking a lot of eggs. Such a President will be risking their life to challenge the deep state and the corporate hegemony. The fact that so many people perceived Trump as some kind of righteous maverick should highlight the real gravity of the challenge ahead. We have some unity in our dissatisfaction with the status quo but a cooperative vision among working people is sorely lacking. An issue which should unite us has divided us worse than ever… in my adult lifetime anyway. The real work starts AFTER a true progressive is elected.

True.

If by some chance Sanders or Warren were to become president, they would be stonewalled by the powers that be.

Corporations, billionaire oligarchs, lobbyists, and the politicians that have been bought and paid for by them, will fight like demons to prevent change.

But what other choice do we have?

 
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 >