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

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

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.

I think Canada's system would work better with some kind of run offs/ranked choice, or primary type system to ensure majority support at the seat level. It seems the winner is often the party that can avoid the most vote splitting. If 60% want a right leaning party and 40% want a left party, but there are 2 major right parties, and one major left party, then the left will usually win the majority of the seats. The most representative government would look like something more like 30/30/40 split of seats.

[timun]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

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.

Hence why I asked in the first place: "'Protest' votes, or clueless congressmen?"

[octothorp]

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

I think it's pretty-much always up to the governor to pick the interim replacement, but it's state rather than federal laws governing that.

In some states, the interim pick will fill out the full term (like in California), while in some states (like Georgia with the Loeffler/Purdue special election), there's still an election held the following November for the candidate who will serve out the remainder of the term.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I think Canada's system would work better with some kind of run offs/ranked choice, or primary type system to ensure majority support at the seat level. It seems the winner is often the party that can avoid the most vote splitting. If 60% want a right leaning party and 40% want a left party, but there are 2 major right parties, and one major left party, then the left will usually win the majority of the seats. The most representative government would look like something more like 30/30/40 split of seats.

I can get behind ranked balloting in theory, but then you run the risk of always selecting the third best candidate, just because both major sides hate one another so much. I can't really think of an ideal voting system that doesn't have flaws. You either get imbalance popular vote support, imbalance in regional representation, or only ever have inefficient minority and coalition governments.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by timun

Hence why I asked in the first place: "'Protest' votes, or clueless congressmen?"

The point I'm making is that 'clueless congressmen' is an unlikely possibility in this instance.

Originally Posted by Mull

No, this is not what I said nor implied.

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.

I do not understand this.

I don't want to timun you, but would you please explain what about it you don't understand? Because the quote and your replies following would seem to suggest that not only do you understand it, but that you agree with it.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mull

No, this is not what I said nor implied.

That was the way it read, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

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.

You're building a false equivalency. The left is hitting people with an assault of words and argumentation. The right is hitting people with systemic brainwashing techniques and fear driven appraisals meant to instill social unrest. The right is not only threatening violence, they are taking direct action in trying to execute plans. Massive difference.

I do not understand this.

I don't believe you. I think you know the difference between misinformation and disinformation and you can recognize who is responsible for what. This isn't someone mistaking information from a bad journal article. This is people intentionally spreading lies to try and affect ideological goals.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The point I'm making is that 'clueless congressmen' is an unlikely possibility in this instance.

I don't want to timun you, but would you please explain what about it you don't understand? Because the quote and your replies following would seem to suggest that not only do you understand it, but that you agree with it.

I'm getting the feeling that this is a returning member of the hulderfolk. This looks like its going to result in the same tired misunderstanding, shifting of the goal posts, then argument of semantics. If I'm wrong I'll own up to it, but this has a real particular scent to it.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Aka, if it’s our party rules don’t matter.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1346195787055820800

https://twitter.com/user/status/1346197591361531909

[Mull]

Originally Posted by New Era

I'm getting the feeling that this is a returning member of the hulderfolk. This looks like its going to result in the same tired misunderstanding, shifting of the goal posts, then argument of semantics. If I'm wrong I'll own up to it, but this has a real particular scent to it.

I didn't shift goal post, and if you feel like this, please quote my statements side by side where I did so and I will address or concede I did?

What you call semantics, I call nuance and nuance matters in my point. Group think (edit: and misinformation) is threating the left. It is dividing us. It is killing us. It makes people on the left think people on the right not as humans but as enemies.

Is it as bad as the right? No, is it still a massive concern? Yes. Do I think Huff is contributing to this problem? Yes. Are they as bad as fox news? No

None of the above is new information in this post, therefore, it is not shifting goal posts. It all stems back to my original post.

Is my attack at Huff the point that made you diverge to a potential personal attack on me? Is it the fact I stated the left is threatened by group think and misinformation as well? Is it the fact there is a nuance where the left isn't nearly as bad as the right, but it is still a concern we should ALL be vigilant about? I honestly can't understand your paranoia and why you wouldn't assume the person you are discussing this with is acting in good faith.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The point I'm making is that 'clueless congressmen' is an unlikely possibility in this instance.

I don't want to timun you, but would you please explain what about it you don't understand? Because the quote and your replies following would seem to suggest that not only do you understand it, but that you agree with it.

I reread it and understand now. The poster is offended that they feel I said that that misinformation is the same on both sides...

except, I didn't say this, nor implied it. I said the opposite..... I said Fox news is worse.

Lastly, I am honestly surprised, that by asking someone to explain their point and saying "I don't understand" could lead anyone to think their is a hidden motive. There is nothing to be gained from admitting you don't understand something... except to better understand?

What hidden motive could I possibly have by saying "I don't understand"?

EDIT: So yes, I agree with it and not sure why the poster took issue with my post, given I clearly stated the right was worse.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I just want to come back to the Trump call, but how utterly hilarious is it that he asked for literally one more vote than is necessary to avoid a tie? Like somehow if he won Georgia by exactly one vote everyone would just accept that that was totally not fixed and on the up and up? At least give yourself a couple hundred vote lead to make it look kinda legit. I suppose ultimately the only good thing about the Trump era was they were far too incompetent to do more damage.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I just want to come back to the Trump call, but how utterly hilarious is it that he asked for literally one more vote than is necessary to avoid a tie? Like somehow if he won Georgia by exactly one vote everyone would just accept that that was totally not fixed and on the up and up? At least give yourself a couple hundred vote lead to make it look kinda legit. I suppose ultimately the only good thing about the Trump era was they were far too incompetent to do more damage.

I think there is more to the Trump call than overturning the election. It makes no sense, as he needs a lot more than Georgia to do this. He knows he isn't going to convince Nevada, etc to change results, neverminded he likely knew Georgia wouldn't change.

I think it is all part of his fundraising scheme.

• If the call was a success, cracks in the faith in the election results and he gets more donations
• If the call is leaked, he somehow uses that to convince his base Georgia is incompetent- more money for Trump

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mull

I didn't shift goal post, and if you feel like this, please quote my statements side by side where I did so and I will address or concede I did?

I didn't say you did, just observed the same language and tenor was used by those who have habitually been goalpost shifters in the past. It's a dead giveaway of certain behaviors.

What you call semantics, I call nuance and nuance matters in my point. Group think (edit: and misinformation) is threating the left. It is dividing us. It is killing us. It makes people on the left think people on the right not as humans but as enemies.

There is a massive difference between nuance and semantics. I welcome a discussion about the nuance of issues, especially important ones. This is one of those, which is why I corrected you on the use of misinformation. The proper term is disinformation and should be identified as such. If you're such a fan and stickler on the importance of nuance then maybe start there because it will clarify your position greatly. It's also important that you understand that the the statements you make are two way streets and lead to argumentation. Example:

"It makes people on the left think people on the right not as humans but as enemies."

Sure there is some truth to this, but the same exists on the right and in greater levels of intensity. I've never seen anyone in the left media or in congress suggest that conservatives should be gathered up and hung. We have seen that rhetoric in conservative media and even from members of the GOP. That isn't too much nuance is it? That shouldn't be the qualifier that really makes this obvious who is doing more damage to the fabric of the nation? I mean, have we seen a left wing plan to kidnap, try, and execute a sitting Governor? More nuance I guess.

Is it as bad as the right? No, is it still a massive concern? Yes. Do I think Huff is contributing to this problem? Yes. Are they as bad as fox news? No

Then state as much. Display the nuance you are talking about and clearly state where the problems lie, because there are bigger problems coming from the RW echo chamber than the left. I mean, remember when Hillary supporters threatened a violent uprising and undertook actual acts of sedition to over-turn Trump's victory?

Is my attack at Huff the point that made you diverge to a potential personal attack on me? Is it the fact I stated the left is threatened by group think and misinformation as well? Is it the fact there is a nuance where the left isn't nearly as bad as the right, but it is still a concern we should ALL be vigilant about? I honestly can't understand your paranoia and why you wouldn't assume the person you are discussing this with is acting in good faith.

Personal attack? Get serious. If you can't handle someone questioning your motivations, unplug and run back to your safe space, the Internet isn't for you. And no, it's not paranoia that someone would come into this thread and not act in good faith. It has happened dozens of times in this thread alone, and with many of the same flourishes you have displayed in your entry into this thread. So you'll have to forgive me if I'm guarded about new contestants and what their motivations are. I've read this script too many times to not be able to predict where its going. If you're serious about discussing the issues, and truly understand what nuance means, then you'll be a welcomed addition to the mix.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Mull

I reread it and understand now. The poster is offended that they feel I said that that misinformation is the same on both sides...

except, I didn't say this, nor implied it. I said the opposite..... I said Fox news is worse.

Lastly, I am honestly surprised, that by asking someone to explain their point and saying "I don't understand" could lead anyone to think their is a hidden motive. There is nothing to be gained from admitting you don't understand something... except to better understand?

What hidden motive could I possibly have by saying "I don't understand"?

EDIT: So yes, I agree with it and not sure why the poster took issue with my post, given I clearly stated the right was worse.

They're suggesting that drawing a parallel between the two things equates them in a way that is dishonest on its face because one is unintentional and the other has malicious intent. It's like saying tripping and accidentally elbowing someone is almost -- but not quite -- as bad as winding up and punching them in the face because there's unwanted physical contact involved.

It's like how I'm sick and tired of people suggesting that a vote between Rachel Notley or Jason Kenney is a vote for the lesser of two evils. It equates them as both being as bad as each other in the same way, but one ever so slightly less so. It cannot be believed by a thinking person.

[timun]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The point I'm making is that 'clueless congressmen' is an unlikely possibility in this instance.

And I get that, thanks for the clarification. I got it right from activeStick's initial reply, "Definitely deliberate protest votes."

I don't want to timun you, but would you please explain what about it you don't understand? Because the quote and your replies following would seem to suggest that not only do you understand it, but that you agree with it.

Eeeeyyyy, my username is turning into a transitive verb!

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Wormius

You might mean Medal of Freedom? Maybe they could add some kind of rigid criteria.

Yes, my mistake. Are you saying they can’t be taken away.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I just want to come back to the Trump call, but how utterly hilarious is it that he asked for literally one more vote than is necessary to avoid a tie? Like somehow if he won Georgia by exactly one vote everyone would just accept that that was totally not fixed and on the up and up? At least give yourself a couple hundred vote lead to make it look kinda legit. I suppose ultimately the only good thing about the Trump era was they were far too incompetent to do more damage.

It's a pretty common theme of Trump's corruption. He's guilty of a lot of attempted collusion, attempted extortion, attempted election fraud, but never really was able to accomplish the real crime. Lots of these things are technically illegal, I'm sure, but it doesn't make for a very sexy prosecution if he really didn't accomplish anything.

If Georgia re-did their results in Trump's favor, and then this tape came out, then, yeah that's a blockbuster trial.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

[nfotiu]

lol, Newsmax has no shame. I can't believe they are actually carried by providers.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

lol, Newsmax has no shame. I can't believe they are actually carried by providers.

I had to back out of my reply to check your location because I was genuinely confused why a Canadian cable provider would carry Newsmax as a standard pack-in channel and not something they'd charge extra for.

[Dion]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1346198136952389633