News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Trump Versus Biden

Started by Jason Harvestdancer, July 03, 2020, 09:46:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Elections are US permissive (fake) or Australian mandatory (fake).  The point of police is to protect the Elite.  The point of elections is to pacify the simps.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

PickelledEggs

I never thought I'd be in agreement with Draconic, but:
People that vote for libertarians are less respectable than any other voters, in my opinion. Yes, even less respectable than republican voters.

Plus, if you really think voting 3rd party is a good choice, let me offer you this suggestion that would do more to benefit you as well as our country. Try jerking off on to the voting booth and walk out without even voting. I guarantee it will have more of an outcome than voting for Jo Jorgensen or any other 3rd party candidate.

PickelledEggs

"I'm Jo Jorgensen and I want you to know that I believe my job is to do nothing"

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 06, 2020, 11:59:47 PM
I never thought I'd be in agreement with Draconic, but:
People that vote for libertarians are less respectable than any other voters, in my opinion. Yes, even less respectable than republican voters.

Plus, if you really think voting 3rd party is a good choice, let me offer you this suggestion that would do more to benefit you as well as our country. Try jerking off on to the voting booth and walk out without even voting. I guarantee it will have more of an outcome than voting for Jo Jorgensen or any other 3rd party candidate.

I don't know. I often feel that if I had been an American., I would be very tempted to vote on neither Republicans nor democrats. But I think I would vote, third party if I found one that fit my wants better.

Would that vote ever make a difference? Probably no more than your specific vote ever would. Probably no less either. And if the only reason why it's concidered foolish to vote third party is that nobody ever votes third party,... Well that's the problem right there innit?

Look, I am in no place to get high and mighty. I think our country has the record of any industrialized western country of going without an elected government.

But I respect people who vote for voting, no more no less than that. And whatever choice, I respect making a choice equally. Even if one option aligns more than the other.

It's just that... Maybe I'm still young. But this American system does quite often seem to lead to a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. And no matter how much change y'all seem to want, you're just going to repeat that cycle every four years. And if that don't change,  how can anything else?

Break the wheel, khaleesi.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

GSOgymrat

I don't have libertarian values. I don't see protecting property rights, promoting laissez-faire capitalism and maximizing individual autonomy as the primary purpose of government. I prefer a strong government devoted to maximizing the well-being of its citizens than minimal government. I would join a third-party based on human-centered capitalism where humanity is more important than money; the unit of an economy is each person, not each dollar; and markets exist to serve our common goals and values.

PickelledEggs

#35
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 07, 2020, 02:32:00 AM
I don't know. I often feel that if I had been an American., I would be very tempted to vote on neither Republicans nor democrats. But I think I would vote, third party if I found one that fit my wants better.

Would that vote ever make a difference? Probably no more than your specific vote ever would. Probably no less either. And if the only reason why it's concidered foolish to vote third party is that nobody ever votes third party,... Well that's the problem right there innit?

Look, I am in no place to get high and mighty. I think our country has the record of any industrialized western country of going without an elected government.

But I respect people who vote for voting, no more no less than that. And whatever choice, I respect making a choice equally. Even if one option aligns more than the other.

It's just that... Maybe I'm still young. But this American system does quite often seem to lead to a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. And no matter how much change y'all seem to want, you're just going to repeat that cycle every four years. And if that don't change,  how can anything else?

Break the wheel, khaleesi.
There needs to be two things to happen in this country, and possibly other countries, but I'm just going to talk for the U.S.

1- There needs to be an abolishment of the party system, all together. No republican party, no democrat party, no 3rd parties. none of it. Just candidates and what they will do.
This will cause a few things to happen: voters will be forced to actually look in to who the candidates are and what they are going to do. Lobbies will also have a harder time bribing candidates, because of instead of bribing the party as a whole, they have to specifically target individuals. It will be more costly for them to spend money on the candidates this way and candidates will be bought out way less frequently.
2- there also needs to be an abolishment of the electoral college. For me, my vote literally doesn't matter. I live in New Jersey. A very "blue" state. Even though I will be voting Biden, it doesn't matter because Biden will win New Jersey no matter what... even if Biden literally shits himself in the debates, NJ will vote Biden.
In red states, no matter what, Trump will win.
It's all about targeting swing states. The fly-over states with no population and no industry... other than Iowa with their corn and Idaho with their potatoes, they have almost nothing. It doesn't matter if Biden or trump campaigns in texas or california or New York.... those states will always vote the way they will vote, but if the candidates target the swing states strategically, they win. And that is bullshit. 
It needs to be individual votes. Not "did you win this state? here is 11 points to your victory!"

Look at this map. When you know which ones are red and which are blue, historically. You know which candidate has "free points towards victory" and then they just need to close the gap in the rest of the places.


These two things need to be legislated. Not just "i'm gonna vote for who I think is the best" when that candidate is a 3rd party candidate.... Because unfortunately going off of the "if everyone voted for who they genuinely thought was the best, we wouldnt have a problem" isn't how shit works. It's not reality. We need a solidified solution. A legislation.

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 07, 2020, 10:29:13 AM
There needs to be two things to happen in this country, and possibly other countries, but I'm just going to talk for the U.S.

1- There needs to be an abolishment of the party system, all together. No republican party, no democrat party, no 3rd parties. none of it. Just candidates and what they will do.
This will cause a few things to happen: voters will be forced to actually look in to who the candidates are and what they are going to do. Lobbies will also have a harder time bribing candidates, because of instead of bribing the party as a whole, they have to specifically target individuals. It will be more costly for them to spend money on the candidates this way and candidates will be bought out way less frequently.
2- there also needs to be an abolishment of the electoral college. For me, my vote literally doesn't matter. I live in New Jersey. A very "blue" state. Even though I will be voting Biden, it doesn't matter because Biden will win New Jersey no matter what... even if Biden literally shits himself in the debates, NJ will vote Biden.
In red states, no matter what, Trump will win.
It's all about targeting swing states. The fly-over states with no population and no industry... other than Iowa with their corn and Idaho with their potatoes, they have almost nothing. It doesn't matter if Biden or trump campaigns in texas or california or New York.... those states will always vote the way they will vote, but if the candidates target the swing states strategically, they win. And that is bullshit. 
It needs to be individual votes. Not "did you win this state? here is 11 points to your victory!"

Look at this map. When you know which ones are red and which are blue, historically. You know which candidate has "free points towards victory" and then they just need to close the gap in the rest of the places.


These two things need to be legislated. Not just "i'm gonna vote for who I think is the best" when that candidate is a 3rd party candidate.... Because unfortunately going off of the "if everyone voted for who they genuinely thought was the best, we wouldnt have a problem" isn't how shit works. It's not reality. We need a solidified solution. A legislation.

All very well put and thought out.

But, without any attempts at sounding condescending... Without judgment, ill intent or any malice whatsoever....

Do you think any elected Democrat or republican will enforce that change?
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Baruch

#37
A general discussion from elsewhere that is illuminative ...

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/883/why-is-proportional-representation-not-considered-in-any-of-the-us-states

In the US proportional representation is based on geography and population.  Not on race, party or ideology.  The general term for problems with this is "malapportionment".  The US House was set up this way in the Constitution.  The US Senate and the WH were not.  The Senate was originally picked by processes in each state, per state legislature or per governor.  By Constitutional amendment, this was changed in regard to the US Senate in 1913.  At that time, senators started to be directly elected by popular vote two in each state.  Originally, the VP was the person with the second highest vote in the Electoral College.  In the case of a tie, there was no rule initially (disastrous in the election of 1800, leading to the fight between Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr and the duel between Burr and Hamilton).  There were no political parties per se, but there were strong ideologies at work, party organization was incoherent.  Then in 1804, the 12th Amendment provided that the President and VP are elected separately (no gold ring for #2) and that the Senate will decide ties in the Electoral College.

The application of geographical/population proportional representation trickled slowly into state and local politics as states were formed and their constitutions amended.  It wasn't until the Baker vs Carr decision of the SCOTUS in 1962, that the Federal Constitution was interpreted to mandate US-style proportional representation in the state legislatures. Before that malapportionment was common, with some voting districts having much more power per voter than other districts.  Local politics had kept this cosy arrangement legal.

Proportional representation based on party is the system usually used in Parliamentary democracies.  Israel's system is partly based on ethnicity (Non-Jews are partly disenfranchised) as was White S Africa.  The resolution of ideology representation vs party representation is resolved by new ideologies forming new parties (usually unsuccessfully in the US system).  There is no guarantee that a particular party will have representation in a parliamentary system, if that party is too small or dispersed over constituencies.  And of course the battle continues with gerrymandering of the redistricting process and ideological factions within parties.

The party system in any form of elected government, is a natural development out of variance and competition.  This was true by the 4th national election in the US (and the ennui between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson).  I don't see that ever changing, because it requires changing reality.  Of course in one-party states one is free to attempt to deny reality.  The Electoral College and any other part of the US Constitution can be amended, but that takes action by the government in DC, and agreement by a 75% of the states.  Any attempt to modify the legal pyramid (based on the US Constitution and from there down to local municipalities) requires working within the system.  There are problems with that.

But working outside of the existing legal system (that exists at any one time) is insurrection.  Essentially that is what the Confederacy did, legally state by state, but there was no provision in the US Constitution then or now, to provide for orderly secession.  There had already been a fight over nullification (that a state can directly refuse to support federal law) and the secession movement of 1860 was a continuation of that.  Earlier, SC had tried to nullify a federal law, under slave-holding President Andrew Jackson, and he had threatened to invade SC if they tried.  Sanctuary cities are a present example of nullification.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

At election time, one is free to imagine candidates one likes better, parties one likes better, or political machinery one likes better.  Which may or may not be related to some desired change to policy (legal marijuana for example).  This blows off steam from the friction of the body politic (how can I benefit myself and my friends and screw my opponents), which the MSM enflames.  The alternative to elections of some sort, or at least confirmation votes of those appointed (members of the President's cabinet or SCOTUS are confirmed by the US Senate) is dictatorship or chaos.  Even in Red China, there must be intense competitions happening within the Communist Party, that are opaque to the Chinese public.  Need I mention Lin Biao?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

PickelledEggs

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 07, 2020, 12:29:06 PM
All very well put and thought out.

But, without any attempts at sounding condescending... Without judgment, ill intent or any malice whatsoever....

Do you think any elected Democrat or republican will enforce that change?
If we riot, yes.

We either have to, as citizens, make them see profit in it, or see the adverse things that can happen for them, if change doesn't occur. I personally like the latter of the two. Fuck those assholes. They don't care about us... just themselves.

I'm fully in favor of countrywide riots until they buckle.

Hydra009

#40
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 07, 2020, 02:32:00 AM
I don't know. I often feel that if I had been an American., I would be very tempted to vote on neither Republicans nor democrats. But I think I would vote, third party if I found one that fit my wants better.

Would that vote ever make a difference? Probably no more than your specific vote ever would. Probably no less either. And if the only reason why it's concidered foolish to vote third party is that nobody ever votes third party,... Well that's the problem right there innit?
In a proportional voting system (or ranked voting), that would work just fine.  But the USA's first-past-the-post voting system is structured to only truly support a two-party system.

Baruch

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 07, 2020, 09:34:49 PM
If we riot, yes.

We either have to, as citizens, make them see profit in it, or see the adverse things that can happen for them, if change doesn't occur. I personally like the latter of the two. Fuck those assholes. They don't care about us... just themselves.

I'm fully in favor of countrywide riots until they buckle.

Yes, there is profit, if on the Soros payroll ;-)  People who are anti-capitalist value ideology, not money.  I don't exactly disapprove though.  I deny the reality of morality, ethics or legality.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

drunkenshoe

#42
In my opinion, the United States of America is the only country where people could actually collapse a system to build a new one. Actually, this is the second round of THE attempt to change this system which was already started in the past. But it is not a sprint, it's a marathon. You have passed the half mark. It is not just hard protesting either. You need to unite against the right nutters in every part of life from daily life to professional. You could do it actually.

This is not just about politics or elections. All groups against need to meet on a common denominator and stand up for each other. Learn to say NO to every kind of provocation. Boycotts of protests of all kinds. 

If people learned to say no to be manipulated, resisted to be triggered, stop watching/listening any kind of propaganda and unite even without lifting a finger, every politician, party, state size corporate around the world would shit themselves right there and then and we would have smelled it from where we sit. LOL

What a dream...pffft

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Mr.Obvious

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 07, 2020, 09:34:49 PM
If we riot, yes.

We either have to, as citizens, make them see profit in it, or see the adverse things that can happen for them, if change doesn't occur. I personally like the latter of the two. Fuck those assholes. They don't care about us... just themselves.

I'm fully in favor of countrywide riots until they buckle.

Might want to step it up to actual domestic terrorism.
Honestly, if those are your means, you'll practically need a full fledged civil war.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, last night, requesting 69.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

drunkenshoe

That's neither the intention, nor the means but the eventual end if forced for survival.

Not just talking about the States. It's good advice to everyone who thinks they're untouchable about not to get too comfortable with the popcorn and the feeling of fake safety.

After all, you westerners are generally, really, really stupid in the end.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp