2020 US presidential election

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Post Reply
User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:02

Ketraar wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 02:18
Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 01:23
A wholly "popular vote" system would mean that candidates could just target the most dense areas of population and "win the Popular Vote."
This is a point made often and it still is not anywhere near accurate.
This old video explains it very well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
By itself, it may not be justification for the Electoral System. However, taken in context with the rest of the things the EC attempts to balance, it's justifiable. Candidates may not have to physically "visit" a city, but they do tend to focus on urban issues and, at times, cultivate certain cities in attempt to gain those votes. There may be something to be said about the meta-effects of "density" when one has the favor of such populations.

Now, as to targeting large population densities in a purely "Popular Vote" system, it's an entirely reasonable strategy based on efficiency. CGPGrey also plays a shell-game with the terms "percentage of total population" and "popular vote" I think. The total number of votes in the 2016 election was around 138 million. If one could win over the support of a large majority of urban dwellers, that would be a very significant number in comparison to the likely number of total votes cast. NOT population. Not the possible number of all eligible voters. But, based on voter turnout, who's likely to vote, how efficient and what the campaign cost-benefits would be, focusing largely on urban centers would have a definite pay-off. And, keep in mind, that doesn't mean they don't win other votes, either. There's going to be things that are not dependent upon them taking on suburban issues in their platform that will still gain the votes of those living in less densely supported regions.

CGPGrey often starts off his vids with a premise and then proves it while ignoring some practical reasons things aren't the way he says they are. Not that I don't appreciate some of his informative vids - He's a good youtuber, by and large, with high production values. I just dislike certain sorts of interpretations presented in absence of practical reality. If, for instance, the opposite existed and the determination was purely by popular vote, would it not be the case that candidates would focus on that in disregard of some regional matters of concern or certain State issues or the concerns of areas with very low population density in comparison? If so, he'd be doing a vid about that injustice, wouldn't he?

It's a compromise solution that exists right now. It's not completely "fair," it's only designed to be "more fair" under the desired conditions, mainly the sovereignty and concerns of States, versus other methods.
Not just the EC is a bad system, but also the FPTP system is stupid in a representative system, having it so that about half the votes are discarded is ludicrous (watch the video for worse case scenario). Elections for single seat office its stupid to have the votes artificially split.
How are votes being "artificially split" here? In the US after a Presidential Election, even those who voted against the winner generally rally around the newly elected President as being representative of "The Will of the People." It may seem strange, but that's what we do. In the case of the latest elected President, though, the polarizing of politics and this President's general lack of ability or desire to act as a unifying force has still left the country somewhat divided on opinion. (Keep in mind that Obama had similar issues during his Presidency at times, but not to this degree really.)
As its now its not really very democratic, especially for the self proclaimed beacon of democracy. Not even going into gerrymandering and all that nonsense that just makes any non US person not living in a dictatorship go O.O
The US is a Representative Republic with Democratic Principles. It's not a pure politically defined "Democracy." But, it is "Democratic."

PS - I agree it's not a "perfect system." It's as fair as it can be right now while still observing the fundamentals present in our political system, namely the sovereignty of the States. (They aren't counties or principalities or regions - They're more akin to nations in an "Empire" than many other things.) It is subject to being "somewhat" exploited, though none of what goes on during a Presidential Election occurs in the vacuum CGPGrey/others may insist exists in their examples. Thanks to Television, Radio and Telephone, which make daily appearances of candidates across the entire nation possible, on TV or in daily newspapers and radio, we're dealing with mechanics that actually work to reduce the effectiveness of campaigns focusing their efforts on one segment of the population over another. So, if you're looking for an equalizer for a "Fair Democratic System of Voting" that's a pretty big factor. And... such sorts of communication can be easily manipulated depending on the easy of creating content and broadcasting it. Thanks to "teh internetz" we now see the impact of that form of mass media, too.
fiksal wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 04:36
@Morkonan

Ah. The electoral college conversations are fun. But we all know how exactly it works, we just repeat the things we know to each other. ... ;) ... so that's fun?
Eh... I didn't bring it up to start with. :) But, if it is going to be brought into the discussion, the reasons it exist kind of have to be stated else it's just going to devolve into ways to invalidate elections by staring out with the premise that they're "fundamentally flawed and unfair to everybody/RIGGED!." :)

On a side note: How in the heck are Democrats going to figure out their Army of candidates? It's a "Progressive" takeover, practically speaking. I'm not sure how traditional "Liberals" feel about it, either. Are they happy with some choices? Ticked off there's nobody carrying their "flag" or not taking the "radical Progressive" bait being lofted everywhere? Will "Uncle Joe" turn the tide or is he going to jump into the Progressive punch-bowl with both feet?

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by fiksal » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:22

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:02
fiksal wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 04:36
@Morkonan

Ah. The electoral college conversations are fun. But we all know how exactly it works, we just repeat the things we know to each other. ... ;) ... so that's fun?
Eh... I didn't bring it up to start with. :) But, if it is going to be brought into the discussion, the reasons it exist kind of have to be stated else it's just going to devolve into ways to invalidate elections by staring out with the premise that they're "fundamentally flawed and unfair to everybody/RIGGED!." :)
hm...huh, it does seem like I missed part of the discussion there... well

And yes, it certainly exists for many reasons. From the first, where people were not to be trusted to people in the cities to not be fully trusted. And then various flavors on that.
Honestly I am not sure I like either Electoral College or Direct democracy.

I could add that, maybe switch up the election of executive branch into election of several people. Maybe I'll like that.

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:02
On a side note: How in the heck are Democrats going to figure out their Army of candidates? It's a "Progressive" takeover, practically speaking. I'm not sure how traditional "Liberals" feel about it, either. Are they happy with some choices? Ticked off there's nobody carrying their "flag" or not taking the "radical Progressive" bait being lofted everywhere? Will "Uncle Joe" turn the tide or is he going to jump into the Progressive punch-bowl with both feet?
I'll personally need an excel sheet I think, with easily sort-able columns. Maybe assign some weights, few points... draw some graphs... play Witcher.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Ketraar » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 10:41

Morkonan wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:02
How are votes being "artificially split" here? In the US after a Presidential Election, even those who voted against the winner generally rally around the newly elected President as being representative of "The Will of the People." It may seem strange, but that's what we do. In the case of the latest elected President, though, the polarizing of politics and this President's general lack of ability or desire to act as a unifying force has still left the country somewhat divided on opinion. (Keep in mind that Obama had similar issues during his Presidency at times, but not to this degree really.)
They are split in the sense that if you are voting in a area with a strong opposing majority, your vote literally is worth nothing, which discourages people from voting in the first place, added with gerrymandering, its even worse as the majorities are artificially constructed. This is the most idiotic system I know of, even dictators try to at least appear to be democratic. In addition FPTP forces a 2 party systems, making it impossible for 3rd or more parties to have any chance or voice, which again reduces representation.
The US is a Representative Republic with Democratic Principles. It's not a pure politically defined "Democracy." But, it is "Democratic."
Please Mork, I have such high regard to your intellect, dont ruin it with this nonsensical debate about what constitutes a democracy and how the US being a Republic has anything to do on how you elect your president. I live in a republic, most people in the "western" world live in Republics.

You already have a states representation by having a senate that has 2 reps from each state, making the states having equal power there, there is no logic in having the states elect the President, again, since its a single seat office, might as well not have it being elected by the people and have it say be nominated by either senate or Congress, similar to parliamentary systems, but I recall reading that the point of having the "people" elect the president was to have a 3 way power check, just that the people designing the system dont trust the people to vote the right way and thus had this important task handed over to people that had a clue what is best. Not very democratic, but it was never supposed to be. It just does no longer fit the times.

MFG

Ketraar
Image

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Bishop149 » Fri, 26. Apr 19, 12:08

My experience recently as a know-nothing Brit.

[Joe Biden enters the race]
Me: "Ah, he should be popular! Obama's VP, generally regarded as a nice guy, not too "extreme" for the Yanks. . . . right?"
Most of Leftist America online: "JOE BIDEN IS LITERALLY HITLER IN NICE SLIPPERS!!"
Me: "Woah. . . . ok, calm down, surely better than Trump though? Might actually beat him?"
Most of Leftist America online: "BOTH THOSE THINGS ARE DEBATABLE!!"

The American Left seems rather similar to the British Left in the regard that they spend so much time fighting amoung themselves they fail to mobilise against the "real enemy"
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 27. Apr 19, 00:17

Ketraar wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 10:41
They are split in the sense that if you are voting in a area with a strong opposing majority, your vote literally is worth nothing, which discourages people from voting in the first place, added with gerrymandering, its even worse as the majorities are artificially constructed. This is the most idiotic system I know of, even dictators try to at least appear to be democratic. In addition FPTP forces a 2 party systems, making it impossible for 3rd or more parties to have any chance or voice, which again reduces representation.
You seem to be arguing against "voting." So, if there's a majority anywhere does that then discount the meaningfulness of the votes cast for the losing side? As far as two-party system goes, the US has plenty of political parties. There are "Independents" holding office in Congress right now. Here's a list: https://ballotpedia.org/Current_third-p ... iceholders
You already have a states representation by having a senate that has 2 reps from each state, making the states having equal power there, there is no logic in having the states elect the President, again, since its a single seat office, might as well not have it being elected by the people and have it say be nominated by either senate or Congress, similar to parliamentary systems, but I recall reading that the point of having the "people" elect the president was to have a 3 way power check, just that the people designing the system dont trust the people to vote the right way and thus had this important task handed over to people that had a clue what is best. Not very democratic, but it was never supposed to be. It just does no longer fit the times.
It is important that the States be represented as independent entities bound together in a shared government. That's important... It's a fundamental part of our political system.

Now, is it "archaic?" Maybe. In some ways there can certainly be an argument that a general democratic election is the better way and the EC should be flushed down the toilet. But... all the elections are conducted by the States. They set up the ballots. They organize voting and poling places. They do all the "grunt work" of carrying on a national election. Candidates don't apply to a "Federal Ballot" - They have to get their names on individual State ballots. Party Primaries are also generally conducted by State, though specifics (with much controversy) are according to the individual party.

In short, the whole framework of a National Election revolves around the States and their individual empowerment of the election process. Framed like that, taking the State's involvement out of the election equation would be taking a very prominent role away from the States. And, there's some political philosophizing going on with that idea, too - We're founded not only on the principles of individual liberty, but the collective rights of States which, by "Right", have all the powers that are not specifically relegated to the Federal Government and enumerated in the Constitution. In short - The collective power, concerns, and rights of individuals specific to a region is observed. The Federal Government can not make a law forcing people to remove all the snow from their property without the people and States in Northern regions rebelling at the very idea of picking up a snowshovel no matter how much the Snowblower Manufacturer's Association lobbies for such a law.

In short - The process of conducting a National election in the US reaffirms some basic ideas and while the empowerment of the individual is at the forefront, so is the idea of the collective rights of people in the member States and the power of those States. Removing the E.C. would do away with that affirmation and would certainly have ramifications regarding the concept of "Statehood" in our system of government.

A losing vote is still a vote. Elected candidates pay attention to those votes, too. They're a message from their constituents and "good" politicians read and understand that message and seek to serve even those who did not vote for them by attempting to address issues in competing platforms that they appeared to be concerned about. "Good" politicians, that is... No, I don't know where those are. :)
fiksal wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:22
..I could add that, maybe switch up the election of executive branch into election of several people. Maybe I'll like that.
I wouldn't mind seeing the offices of President and Vice-President split instead of them running together on the same ticket... However, I would also not like to see it set up as an adversarial sort of governance process. It wouldn't be right to burden a President with having to fight their own Administration - They already have to fight, if necessary, another branch of government or two, if it came to that.
I'll personally need an excel sheet I think, with easily sort-able columns. Maybe assign some weights, few points... draw some graphs... play Witcher.
I should really get that game... And, I should reinstall my ancient copy of Office that doesn't require friggin subscription fees. I have no idea if Win10 will even accept it. (Really friggin' tired of "MicroSoft Orifice" refusing to accept that I don't want it to have any file associations at all, ever, never, ever...

<click .ods file, MicroSoft Orifice pops up because it claims everything and resets my friggin file associations all-too-often>

"Oh, you would like to use Micro$oft Orifice? You should register for your Micro$oft Orifice sub$cription, today!"

<Get ticked-off, decide to look at my meme collection, click .jpg, expecting it to be associated with IRFanView>

"LOOKIT! WE GIVED U A PICTSHUR VIEWER! U WANNA UPKLODE IT TO UR ONEDRIBE, TOO, I BET!>"

</quit Goes to play Witcher, but doesn't have it>

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Sat, 27. Apr 19, 02:14

Bishop149 wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 12:08
The American Left seems rather similar to the British Left in the regard that they spend so much time fighting amoung themselves they fail to mobilise against the "real enemy"
That has nothing to do with American or British, that's just how modern politic and activism are in general. I don't care how far left you already are, but if I see you on my right, that means you're not far left enough. But don't think we'll be friend if I actually see on my left. That means I now have to compete and "out-left" you. After all, who doesn't want to be able to call themselves the "true" left and champion of the cause - which usually include the party candidate ticket. So that leads to a race of people with the "same" ideology to go extreme and even more extreme until they're right at the edge.

And of course, all that can be said on the other side of island. Far left and far right, they have one similarity: it only takes a few more steps for either to jump off the cliff.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 27. Apr 19, 04:40

Mightysword wrote:
Sat, 27. Apr 19, 02:14
Bishop149 wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 12:08
The American Left seems rather similar to the British Left in the regard that they spend so much time fighting amoung themselves they fail to mobilise against the "real enemy"
That has nothing to do with American or British, that's just how modern politic and activism are in general. I don't care how far left you already are, but if I see you on my right, that means you're not far left enough. But don't think we'll be friend if I actually see on my left. That means I now have to compete and "out-left" you. After all, who doesn't want to be able to call themselves the "true" left and champion of the cause - which usually include the party candidate ticket. So that leads to a race of people with the "same" ideology to go extreme and even more extreme until they're right at the edge.

And of course, all that can be said on the other side of island. Far left and far right, they have one similarity: it only takes a few more steps for either to jump off the cliff.
When you try to analyze what makes a person right wing you inevitably end up with our Constitution. The principles of the right are firmly grounded there. The left doesn't have that. They are appealing to a mob. They have to constantly rile up emotions into hysteria to keep that momentum going. It isn't policy that matters anymore. It is who can appear most virtuous.
Who made that man a gunner?

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Sat, 27. Apr 19, 07:19

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 27. Apr 19, 04:40
When you try to analyze what makes a person right wing you inevitably end up with our Constitution. The principles of the right are firmly grounded there.
And even the Constitution is only an idea at the end of the day. And idea no matter how firm or pure, can be perverted and corrupted by fanatic. Saying the right rooted in Constitution does not make them beyond reproach or absolute. In fact, the more strongly someone believe that is the case, the easier they will become corrupted. It's the same story for the left, I have no problem admitting they have the heart at the right place. I can freely say in a way some of the things socialists try to do are similar to doing god's work, and that's great. The issue is when they believe in their platform so strongly and all that rushed into their head, they start believing they can also pass god judgement down on anyone who disagree with them.

The moment you believe you are so great and right that you are incorruptible, then that the's clearest evidence that you are ALREADY corrupted.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 27. Apr 19, 08:08

Mightysword wrote:
Sat, 27. Apr 19, 07:19
Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 27. Apr 19, 04:40
When you try to analyze what makes a person right wing you inevitably end up with our Constitution. The principles of the right are firmly grounded there.
And even the Constitution is only an idea at the end of the day. And idea no matter how firm or pure, can be perverted and corrupted by fanatic. Saying the right rooted in Constitution does not make them beyond reproach or absolute. In fact, the more strongly someone believe that is the case, the easier they will become corrupted. It's the same story for the left, I have no problem admitting they have the heart at the right place. I can freely say in a way some of the things socialists try to do are similar to doing god's work, and that's great. The issue is when they believe in their platform so strongly and all that rushed into their head, they start believing they can also pass god judgement down on anyone who disagree with them.

The moment you believe you are so great and right that you are incorruptible, then that the's clearest evidence that you are ALREADY corrupted.
You can disagree with me. That is my beef with the left. They don't offer me that. It is their way or else. I don't want to go down that road.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Observe » Sun, 28. Apr 19, 02:50

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 27. Apr 19, 04:40
When you try to analyze what makes a person right wing you inevitably end up with our Constitution. The principles of the right are firmly grounded there. The left doesn't have that.
Hogwash.The left has the same constitution as the right. The constitution is not some frozen edict, divinely inspired by some God or other, who demands worship of his commandments, by his blind followers. It is a collection of ideas that sprung from the minds of men. It is subject to change through amendment. It is a story; not unlike other stories. I understand why you want to feel special and apart from those you disagree with, but the constitution won't do that for you. That is something you are making up. Your beef is not with the left, but with your own narrative.

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by BugMeister » Sun, 28. Apr 19, 13:24

Keith was right then, and he's still right today..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9VZTrtRhN0

- the Replicants have no policies..
- they blindly support Trump..
- all the way to hell.. :doh:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Bishop149 » Mon, 29. Apr 19, 17:13

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 27. Apr 19, 04:40
When you try to analyze what makes a person right wing you inevitably end up with our Constitution. The principles of the right are firmly grounded there. The left doesn't have that. They are appealing to a mob. They have to constantly rile up emotions into hysteria to keep that momentum going. It isn't policy that matters anymore. It is who can appear most virtuous.
Really? How exactly would you say the right wing is rooted in the Constitution? Please pick out the lines you are referring to specifically.
Because my reading of it is as a document that outlines a framework for governance which is broadly rather neutral in regard to such things . . . it might lean ever so slightly to the right overall, but hardly sufficiently to justify your statement
Bits of it read as damn right socialist. I also find it rather interesting that many of the more obvious leanings in either direction come within the amendments (amendment 16 in particular is doozy :roll:).

To broaden things out how do you think the right wing of today best embodies the most famous section of the second declaration of independence? Essentially the first line (after the bookkeeping paragraph)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"All men", eh? Sounds a bit socialist doesn't it.
Can't be right, perhaps they meant: white men? . . American men? . . wealthy men? . . all men (except Mexicans)? :roll:
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Morkonan » Tue, 30. Apr 19, 02:03

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 27. Apr 19, 04:40
...When you try to analyze what makes a person right wing you inevitably end up with our Constitution. The principles of the right are firmly grounded there. The left doesn't have that....It isn't policy that matters anymore. It is who can appear most virtuous.
Many political parties make the exact same claim. It's done so often these days that it's meaningless until one or the other actually, specifically, lays out their platform. Specifically. Otherwise, it's just an "Appeal to a Higher Power" and they may as well be reading off the instructions on a milk carton.

A "principle" doesn't matter until it is put into practice. That's what matters. The only evidence for that will be for a party to "put their principles into practice" by demonstrating that in their platform/foundation/list of specific "things." Propaganda and Principle are not the same word.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16568
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by fiksal » Tue, 30. Apr 19, 16:36

Morkonan wrote:
Sat, 27. Apr 19, 00:17
fiksal wrote:
Fri, 26. Apr 19, 05:22
..I could add that, maybe switch up the election of executive branch into election of several people. Maybe I'll like that.
I wouldn't mind seeing the offices of President and Vice-President split instead of them running together on the same ticket... However, I would also not like to see it set up as an adversarial sort of governance process. It wouldn't be right to burden a President with having to fight their own Administration - They already have to fight, if necessary, another branch of government or two, if it came to that.
They are public servants, I dont see a reason Not to burden them with working towards a common goal rather than extremes. If they cant handle it, then replace them with someone else.

I dont even mean just the Vice president. There are more spots that can be filled this way, like Secretary of State, and the others.

And I understand why we dont do it in US, I understand why we dont do it in Russia. - people like to see nearly absolute executive power in the hands of just one man - it is clear. I just cut through the fluff and call them by what they are - kings, with varying degrees of power.

Morkonan wrote:
Sat, 27. Apr 19, 00:17
I'll personally need an excel sheet I think, with easily sort-able columns. Maybe assign some weights, few points... draw some graphs... play Witcher.
I should really get that game... And, I should reinstall my ancient copy of Office that doesn't require friggin subscription fees. I have no idea if Win10 will even accept it. (Really friggin' tired of "MicroSoft Orifice" refusing to accept that I don't want it to have any file associations at all, ever, never, ever...
It's a good series of games. I still need to finish #2, and 3.

Have you heard of LibreOffice? It's actually not too bad, an off shoot of Open Office, apparently.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Morkonan » Tue, 30. Apr 19, 23:53

fiksal wrote:
Tue, 30. Apr 19, 16:36
They are public servants, I dont see a reason Not to burden them with working towards a common goal rather than extremes. If they cant handle it, then replace them with someone else.

I dont even mean just the Vice president. There are more spots that can be filled this way, like Secretary of State, and the others.

And I understand why we dont do it in US, I understand why we dont do it in Russia. - people like to see nearly absolute executive power in the hands of just one man - it is clear. I just cut through the fluff and call them by what they are - kings, with varying degrees of power.
Agreed, up to a point. :) I don't know the system in Russia or if it works as intended, but in the US there is a very strong set of boundaries that is maintained so that the President can't end up being like a "king." "Checks and balances" and all that. Plus, the President has no access to money for funding anything. Trump is actually, or has been, pushing the boundaries there, though.
It's a good series of games. I still need to finish #2, and 3.

Have you heard of LibreOffice? It's actually not too bad, an off shoot of Open Office, apparently.
Yeah, the series has always gotten good marks from fans/industry. My "thing" is that I like that sort of game on PC so I can mod the heck out of it... And, my PC only has slightly better performance than my toaster. (Though, I'm gathering parts slowly for a new one.)

I've tried both. I use neither extensively, though would likely prefer Open Office. Libre Office split off after disagreements with Sun/fight/argument/whatever. It seemed like it had a problem establishing itself on its own and development was kinda wonky, so that's why I stayed with Open Office. Either one is fine for regular sorts of office-suite tasks, though. Some functions with M$oft Office file extensions still suck, though...

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Observe » Sat, 3. Aug 19, 17:17

My take from the latest round of Democratic debates in order of preference:

1. Andrew Yang
2. Pete Buttigieg
3. Bernie Sanders
4. Jay Inslee
5. Julian Castro
6. Cory Booker
7. Eliabeth Warren
8. Kamala Harris
9. Any one of the others
10. Joe Biden

Andrew Yang because of his views on human-centered capitalism (humans are more important than money). Universal basic income.
Pete Buttigieg because he is highly intelligent and has a 'clarity' (not sure how else to put it) about him that many of the others lack.
Bernie Sanders because...well because he's Bernie. What can I say.
Jay Inslee because climate change is his highest priority.

I put Joe Biden last because his time is past. He's a good enough man, but it's time for him to hang up his hat.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 13. Dec 19, 07:51

In respect for the people properly wanting to talk about the recent election in the UK in the Brexit thread itself, I''ll put my reflection what it means for the US election in this thread instead.

While in the past I know there are other posters (from the UK) challenged me that the media is very neutral with equal pull on the issue. And as someone not living in the UK I will assume ignorant in not knowing the truth. But here once I again I can only state what I see with my own eyes. In the running up to this election, Boris and conservative had been pretty much hammering on as the bad guys. In fact, in the last couple days when sign started to show it would be an unexpected majority for Conservative, it looked almost like all stop are pulled in vilifying Boris, he's pretty much got the Trump treatment in British media - again, from whatever corner I have access to.

Just to be clear, even though I'm not from UK, this result sadden me since I had always hoped the UK would somehow reverse course and stay in the EC. And I definitely don't have high opinion of Boris both as a person and as a politician. However, I'm not making this reflection as an argument about fact, deserve or under-serve, true or false, but merely as an observable pattern. Specifically the relationship between the (negative) noise generated around an individual (Boris), and how it proved pretty much irrelevant at the end. This one reddit post which received the most up-vote and most acolytes since the result was announced put it best:
I'll be honest: things like this make me realize what a bubble I live in by getting so much news from reddit and I need to diversify. I've seen nothing but posts about what a POS Johnson is and how great Corbyn is that I assumed Corbyn was going to win comfortably. He wasn't even close.

The reddit demo isn't everyone and suppresses anything that goes against our worldview.
And before anyone dismiss this as "oh it's reddit, what you expect?", this is simply an example of what I have argue for in the last three years. I had many time engaged other posters talking about "mainstream, having platform to voice an opinion, the loud minority and the silence majority ...etc...", and at this point I feel one has to be in deep denial to not see the pattern in the Brexit Referendum, the 2016 US election, and this 2019 general election. Last week the BBC posted an article on how this UK election will serve as a pretty good basic to form an educated guess what will happen next year in the US. And I think it's safe to say the result tonight will leave Democrat and Republican with two very opposite emotion, and you know there will be one man laughing in his sleep tonight in the White House.

It's a conflicted feeling for me though. On one hand, I'm sadden by the result itself but on the other hand, I'm kinda relish to see that after a decade plus of this style of politic, it seems to losing its effectiveness. The canceling culture, suppression of unpopular opinion, and the vilification of anyone disagree no longer work. It's the kind of emotion that you are sad that someone died, but at the same time you hope that death mayharp bringing in new change. I hope the Democrat in the US, and perhaps the progressive wings globally are taking notes that the voting populate seemed to have moved beyond the tactic that had served them well in the last 12-15 years. Some corner in the UK right now are blaming labour defeat on a weak and indecisive Corbyn. But even if they're right, that only serve to emphasize the fact that the voting dynamic had shifted to the view that if one want to be elect, he/she must present themselves in better light and not simply count on making the bad guy out of the opponents.


Again it goes back to something that had often pop-up in the Trump thread: if Democrat really want to win the WH in 2020, then they should really stop being obsessive with Trump, and instead diverse whatever energy they are wasting on that endeavor into presenting a strong, united and capable candidate instead. Anyone on the left, if they are willing to step out of the echo chamber for a bit and look at thing objectively should realize "you can not damage Trump more than you already did". Even if you find another 101 things to shackle him with scandal and impeachable offenses, I feel we're already at a point that no one else but the resident of the echo chamber still care. All it gonna take is a few more good job reports, and the economy keeping up steam for another years and Trump will have a better shot then most people will want to admit. But IMO, the thing that will help Trump the most next year is when Democrat can only have their own version of Corbyn going up against Trump. Going back to that reddit post, the sooner the left realize they're living in their own moral/mainstream/whateveryouwanttocallit bubble, the better a shot they will have at Trump. Until then, they can keep "getting outraged and surprised".
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 14. Dec 19, 04:46

I concur with your take on what happened in the UK and I see a lot of similarity to 2016 Trump. I caught that reddit post too and it made a lot of sense to me since the politics reddit is completely one sided on opinion and the trump reddit has been shown administrative prejudice for years. There is no organized conservative presence of any significance. It gets silenced or shouted down by the mob. It gets hostile real quick too. I've said before that the best thing about this little forum is that we have years of discussion about Trump that is mostly civil. That is way better than the internet at large is able to achieve. Politics in general have become much more vicious and personal than I ever remember them being.

I don't follow UK politics. Haven't needed to since 1776. I have a vague notion of this Johnson character and I know Corbyn was a lefty from the briefest of summaries I read about him. I don't know enough to comment about why I think the guy was elected. I think you are right about Trump. The state of the economy is the 800lb gorilla in the room that no one on the left wants to mention. It doesn't need to care about feelings. If people see Trump as the path to more wages, more demand for work, and more growth for their business it is a done deal.
Who made that man a gunner?

berth
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat, 6. Nov 04, 16:22
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by berth » Sat, 14. Dec 19, 15:00

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 14. Dec 19, 04:46
...I don't follow UK politics. Haven't needed to since 1776...
:lol:

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by CBJ » Wed, 18. Dec 19, 12:16

The idea that Boris got worse treatment than other candidates in the media is, frankly, laughable. Yes, he was called out for his more egregious lies and for being out of touch with ordinary people, neither of which are unreasonable given his behaviour. But similarly Corbyn was, equally reasonably, portrayed as intransigent and out of touch with what voters actually thought of his policies, and therefore what could actually get him elected.

What happens on Reddit, and in other corners of the internet where like-minded people gather and pat each other on the back for agreeing with one another, does not reflect what happens in the professional media.

Anyway, I'll let you get back to the real subject in hand. :)

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”