[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[Pacem]

Originally Posted by Mull

To be fair in the last Canadian election, Scheer obtain more votes than our current leader (beat him by >1% of the vote). It is a bit of apples and oranges given we don't have a two party system, but I do find it funny when Canadians point to the popular vote in the states.

This is almost zero evidence Trump and his allies can overturn the election given the dems control of the house (not to mention a million other things), why do you think Trump will be president on the 21st?

I am aware that we have a similar issue with the popular vote Canada. I realize no system will be perfect. In the example I've listed someone can win and then have it over turned because of the house and senate. That just seems so messed up. Its a simple majority required to boot.

I've just been saying that since the beginning of 2020. I'm a stubborn man who doesn't like to be wrong. I do not see any viable way Trump is President on January 21st but I didn't see a lot of things going the way that they have so far. So, I'm riding my prediction to the bitter end. Logic be damned.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Pacem

I've learned so much about the American system from this thread over the last 4 years.

What is going on (contesting of the election) is so bat #### insane. Does this now mean if a President is elected but his party loses both the senate and house that the USA will just nullify the President elect and just appoint their President of choice? Isn't that the precedent being set right now?

The way the seats in the senate are determined and with gerry mandering it is totally feasible that a President can be elected but lose the house and senate and then just have the Presidency portion of the election nullified. How is that a democracy?

Trump had 7 million fewer votes and 4.5% behind Biden. This is just insane. I said all a long to family when asked what's going to happen in the election. All year i have stuck to, come January 21st Trump will be President. So far I'm not wrong.

WAT? So far you aren't wrong...that makes no sense and you will be wrong

[Pacem]

Originally Posted by dino7c

WAT? So far you aren't wrong...that makes no sense and you will be wrong

Is it January 21st yet? Until January 21st happens, I am technically not wrong. It is a tongue in cheek comment. Relax.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Pacem

I'm a stubborn man who doesn't like to be wrong. I do not see any viable way Trump is President on January 21st but I didn't see a lot of things going the way that they have so far. So, I'm riding my prediction to the bitter end. Logic be damned.

I can't help but love this response to be honest. Cards on the table, authentic.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mull

Can you explain the option of the clueless congress people perspective here to me better?

I understand Nacy has had an effective career as the leader in the house, but what would make someone clueless for voting against her to try to push another vote for new blood?

If I understand the system right, this isn't the general election, where a vote against Biden is a vote for Trump, this is the house. A democrat vote against Nancy, is a vote for a new candidate. Given the dems control the house, it is unlikely they are supporting a vote for the republicans, just a different dem leader.

In short, I don't get the perceived issue with voting against Nancy in this particular vote?

I agree with the jest of what you are saying. Voting against Pelosi is not a bad thing. The Democrats need new leadership and Pelosi is one that needs to go. A vote against her is not a vote against the party, it may be just a vote for new blood or a statement of your wish to go in another direction. A present vote usually states this without voting against the leader in question.

Originally Posted by Mull

I am going to do the horrible social media thing of making a comment after only skimming an article. So with that context (feel free to embarrass me for missing the point)....

I don't think this is a fox news or right vs left issue- I think this is an issue of group think and people of all political spectrums finding safe spaces to have only their own perspectives echo'd back at them. This then leads to fake news turning into "real" news.

I laugh as this is a Huff post article and I feel they are a huge contributor to this issue in society. I recall some of their misinformation about how pipelines are built.

-Is Fox one of the most impactful? Probably,
-Are the viewers of Fox likely farther gone than the left? I think so, but I am bias as heck on this

However, this does occur on the left and the left won't self reflect. The left tends to gloat about how stupid they feel the right is. Critical thought and being constructively challenged on ones view points are leaving as we get into social media bubbles, which has the downstream effect of dividing us, which is killing us. Huff post should be considered a real contributor of this problem.

You're building a false equivalency here. You're trying to suggest that the left has the same infrastructure and the same level of concise strategy behind what they do. We have to acknowledge that each of the entities is what it is and not equal players in the game.

For example, Huffington Post is a left leaning site. They give progressives a voice to espouse their point of view, no doubt. But when you look at how they present information and the voices they give access to, it is not some ####show like some sites on the right. Where on the left is there a fear factory like Fox News, Breitbart, or NewsMax? Where on the left is there a propaganda network like Fox News, OANN, or Sinclair? Where on the left is the think tank establishment like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and so on? Where on the left is the well organized political activist community that can rival The Federalist Society, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and so on?

The suggestion that this disinformation war (this is NOT misinformation, this is flat out disinformation, done with clear intent) is equitable is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who is paying attention. But there is the most significant problem, most people aren't paying attention.

[troutman]

White House Statement

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Pacem

Is it January 21st yet? Until January 21st happens, I am technically not wrong. It is a tongue in cheek comment. Relax.

I am relaxed and you are wrong....use critical thinking and adjust your prediction

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Also Canadians seem ok not even voting for their Prime Minister.

Why wouldn't we be ok with that? The Prime Minister is the head of the house, he is Nancy Pelosi, elected by the elected members. Our system just lets him run the executive instead of the Monarch having any direct governmental control..

"Canadians seem ok not even voting for their Queen", would be a better comparison.

Also to point out that I don't know if there is a case (there probably is at least one) where someone lost the popular vote and formed a majority government in Canada. Trump lost the vote and is guaranteed 4 years, Trudeau lost the vote and has to make concessions to other parties or risk losing his job. Totally different circumstances.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pacem

What is going on (contesting of the election) is so bat #### insane. Does this now mean if a President is elected but his party loses both the senate and house that the USA will just nullify the President elect and just appoint their President of choice? Isn't that the precedent being set right now?

Will? I doubt it. They're all talking about voting like this because they figure the upside of MAGA support is worth the downside of appearing authoritarian and since there's zero chance of it succeeding it's just virtue signaling. It's like repealing the ACA dozens of times when they know the Senate won't pass the bill.

But in theory yes it could happen. Trump yet again casts light on the serious problems with the American system of government.

In practice though I don't think it would ever happen because then you would actually see a civil war.

EDIT: To clarify it's impossible this time because Dems control the house.

[Pacem]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I am relaxed and you are wrong....use critical thinking and adjust your prediction

Can't even slip in a cheeky comment without someone being a jerk about it.

Thanks for reminding me why I just read this forum daily and no longer contribute.

Have a good one.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Why wouldn't we be ok with that? The Prime Minister is the head of the house, he is Nancy Pelosi, elected by the elected members. Our system just lets him run the executive instead of the Monarch having any direct governmental control..

"Canadians seem ok not even voting for their Queen", would be a better comparison.

Also to point out that I don't know if there is a case (there probably is at least one) where someone lost the popular vote and formed a majority government in Canada. Trump lost the vote and is guaranteed 4 years, Trudeau lost the vote and has to make concessions to other parties or risk losing his job. Totally different circumstances.

There are lots of cases in Canadian history where the ruling party had a majority government, but nowhere near the majority of the popular vote. That always seemed un-democratic to have a ruling majority party that 60% opposed.

[FlamesAddiction]

The latest Georgia polls have both Orsoff and Warnock in the lead. Still too close for comfort though.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...-senate-polls/

[Fuzz]

So if the Dems win both, are they sworn in pretty much immediately? Just wondering if McConnell loses his control right away, or still has some time to detonate some bombs...

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So if the Dems win both, are they sworn in pretty much immediately? Just wondering if McConnell loses his control right away, or still has some time to detonate some bombs...

I didn't know California Governor Newsom had the power to select Kamala's replacement in the Senate. I would have thought a run-off would be required.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick...h=210b70ec5d50

[timun]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Why the #### was this necessary?

Because I think Mull knows exactly what I mean but is playing dumb.

Originally Posted by Mull

Sorry, please keep the hand holding going. I don't see how this addressed my question?

See?

Mull, I don't get how you don't get what I'm saying. I don't understand why you're even asking your original question in the first place, other than playing dumb (and/or coy, for some reason).

I understand how Democrat congressmen can use their vote for speaker of the house to push for change in their party from within. That said, I also think so lowly of the average congressman—no matter what colour their party uses on TV—that it wouldn't surprise me if those two congressmen who voted for someone else and the three who voted "present" weren't abstaining from voting for Pelosi but were in fact so inept that they didn't even realize who or what they were voting for in the first place.

TL;DR: I think politicians are dumb. Simple enough explanation for you?

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by troutman

I didn't know California Governor Newsom had the power to select Kamala's replacement in the Senate. I would have thought a run-off would be required.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick...h=210b70ec5d50

Don't you remember Rod Blagojevich trying to sell Obama's senate seat?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by timun

Mull, I don't get how you don't get what I'm saying. I don't understand why you're even asking your original question in the first place, other than playing dumb (and/or coy, for some reason).

I understand how Democrat congressmen can use their vote for speaker of the house to push for change in their party from within. That said, I also think so lowly of the average congressman—no matter what colour their party uses on TV—that it wouldn't surprise me if those two congressmen who voted for someone else and the three who voted "present" weren't abstaining from voting for Pelosi but were in fact so inept that they didn't even realize who or what they were voting for in the first place.

TL;DR: I think politicians are dumb. Simple enough explanation for you?

It's one thing to suggest that when they're voting for policy. Representative Numbnuts didn't bother to read what they're voting for, votes in a way that is not aligned with their own positions, etc.

To conflate that apathy with a vote for the Speaker, I don't think that has a whole lot of backing in reality. This is like saying if you got a chance to vote for the next director of your department at work you would close your eyes and just pick the one with the smartest sounding name because you can't be arsed to consider the differences between your options. These people work with each other on a daily basis, I think they're paying it much closer attention than you think.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by timun

Because I think Mull knows exactly what I mean but is playing dumb.


See?

Mull, I don't get how you don't get what I'm saying. I don't understand why you're even asking your original question in the first place, other than playing dumb (and/or coy, for some reason).

I understand how Democrat congressmen can use their vote for speaker of the house to push for change in their party from within. That said, I also think so lowly of the average congressman—no matter what colour their party uses on TV—that it wouldn't surprise me if those two congressmen who voted for someone else and the three who voted "present" weren't abstaining from voting for Pelosi but were in fact so inept that they didn't even realize who or what they were voting for in the first place.

TL;DR: I think politicians are dumb. Simple enough explanation for you?

You have now accused me in discussing this topic with you in bad faith.

You are responding to me in a sarcastic fashion, when I only seek to understand, with no hidden agenda.

Not everyone online is trying to "play dumb". Sometimes genuine curiosity does exist, or, people don't pick up what you're saying no matter how obvious it is to you. I can't think of a motivation for me to play dumb in this discussion given its context?

I will end with this - communication is a two way street. If it fails, don't forget to look at ones self as well for the reason.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

There are lots of cases in Canadian history where the ruling party had a majority government, but nowhere near the majority of the popular vote. That always seemed un-democratic to have a ruling majority party that 60% opposed.

Unless you want a two party system like the States, I'd much rather have the ruling party with ~30% to rule. At least with Canada, viable parties can come into existence. With true majority rules, it's always going to be one or the other.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by New Era

You're building a false equivalency here. You're trying to suggest that the left has the same infrastructure and the same level of concise strategy behind what they do. We have to acknowledge that each of the entities is what it is and not equal players in the game.

No, this is not what I said nor implied.

Originally Posted by New Era

For example, Huffington Post is a left leaning site. They give progressives a voice to espouse their point of view, no doubt. But when you look at how they present information and the voices they give access to, it is not some ####show like some sites on the right. Where on the left is there a fear factory like Fox News, Breitbart, or NewsMax? Where on the left is there a propaganda network like Fox News, OANN, or Sinclair? Where on the left is the think tank establishment like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, and so on? Where on the left is the well organized political activist community that can rival The Federalist Society, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and so on?

Again not my point, and I did say in my view the right is further gone. I do think there are those on the left hurting us, like Huff, but I do not think, nor say, they are at the same level as those on the right.

Originally Posted by New Era

The suggestion that this disinformation war (this is NOT misinformation, this is flat out disinformation, done with clear intent) is equitable is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who is paying attention. But there is the most significant problem, most people aren't paying attention.

I do not understand this.