Staggering early vote turnout boosts hopes for Biden in Texas

[ThailandRyan]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

This was the most expensive election in history.  A staggering amount of money was spent.  The political system in the US is broken and needs a reset.  18% approval rating for congress.  Fire them all.

With this I agree 100%.  As I have said before it should be an even playing field with only a few radio, television, and print adds, which would allow anyone who was qualified to run for any office run without being crushed by another person just because they have money.

 

Just think if the money these political races spent was put into the actual constituents hands not as a pure handout but, as a means to reduce taxes, and create jobs, and then used for the good of the people.  Just think of what the end result might be.  The Dems are always trying to give money out, but at the same time they are not asking for the recipients to do anything for it, and the Republicans..... well I do not have enough room to continue on.

[placeholder]

20 hours ago, riclag said:

Ya Think ,retuters  !  ! If the far lefts boogiman was in danger of a loss in Texas,Cruz would be canvasing that state , relentlessly !

When have you seen a positive conservative story come out from that  source!

And they get a all sides rating  lol

 

 

Ya think Ted Cruz is popular in Texas? He's someone only you and his mother could love. He won his Senate race in 2018 by the smallest margin in any Texas Senate race in 40 years. I wish he would campaign on Cornyn's behalf. Doubtless that would help increase  Democratic turnout. 

[Rimmer]

A baiting post and the replies have been removed

[sucit]

In the information age we have a choice between an oppressive CIA, MSM and Wall Street backed Biden and Trump. Nice job Americans. 

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, sucit said:

In the information age we have a choice between an oppressive CIA, MSM and Wall Street backed Biden and Trump. Nice job Americans. 

Wall Street backs Trump.  Though right now, they're saying Biden will do better for the economy if he has both houses of congress.  Makes sense.  It's a broken political system.  A circus for sure.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/stock-market-coronavirus-trump.html

As Virus Spread, Reports of Trump Administration’s Private Briefings Fueled Sell-Off

A hedge fund consultant’s summary of private presentations by White House economic advisers fanned investor worries.

[placeholder]

26 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

With this I agree 100%.  As I have said before it should be an even playing field with only a few radio, television, and print adds, which would allow anyone who was qualified to run for any office run without being crushed by another person just because they have money.

 

Just think if the money these political races spent was put into the actual constituents hands not as a pure handout but, as a means to reduce taxes, and create jobs, and then used for the good of the people.  Just think of what the end result might be.  The Dems are always trying to give money out, but at the same time they are not asking for the recipients to do anything for it, and the Republicans..... well I do not have enough room to continue on.

As long as the majority of Supreme Court are conservatives campaign finance reform won't happen. Look up Citizen's United.

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

As long as the majority of Supreme Court are conservatives campaign finance reform won't happen. Look up Citizen's United.

Along with gerrymandering, restricting voting rights, the Electoral College, etc, etc.  Republicans know without these things, they'll be toast.  They cheat.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/10/26/court-expansion-republicans-amy-coney-barrett-avlon-reality-check-newday-vpx.cnn

 

Quote

Republicans have been trying to 'pack courts' for years

 

[Surelynot]

8 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Though right now, they're saying Biden will do better for the economy

No link, but read a report yesterday that the American economy has always faired better with Democrat presidents....contrary to what most American's are led to believe.

[Surelynot]

11 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

  13 minutes ago, sucit said:

In the information age we have a choice between an oppressive CIA, MSM and Wall Street backed Biden and Trump. Nice job Americans. 

Thank god for Twitter and Trump's Twitter feed for the truth.....555

[pegman]

36 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As long as the majority of Supreme Court are conservatives campaign finance reform won't happen. Look up Citizen's United.

Constitutional amendment 

[pegman]

33 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

No link, but read a report yesterday that the American economy has always faired better with Democrat presidents....contrary to what most American's are led to believe.

The stock exchange too

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, Surelynot said:

The media, in the UK, tend to portray Americans as being pretty dumb......but I can't believe they are so dumb as to give Trump another term.....?

We shall find out shortly'

 

Mind you. it does seem, based on last time, that the choice of President is not necessarily made bu the voters (3 million more votes for Mrs Clinton nationally or something?), and if Mr Trump has his way this time, the choice may be made by the Supreme Court!

[Neeranam]

The media, in the UK, tend to portray Americans as being pretty dumb......but I can't believe they are so dumb as to give an old aged pensioner with cognitive issues the presidency. 

[BritManToo]

7 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

The media, in the UK, tend to portray Americans as being pretty dumb......but I can't believe they are so dumb as to give an old aged pensioner with cognitive issues the presidency. 

Didn't stop them electing Reagan or Bush.

[Jeffr2]

43 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

The media, in the UK, tend to portray Americans as being pretty dumb......but I can't believe they are so dumb as to give an old aged pensioner with cognitive issues the presidency. 

 

Yeah. Trump’s election in 2016 was a stunner. Shows voters aren't that smart.

 

32 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Have you seen any recent videos of Biden, he can hardly talk, at least Reagan could, and very well, very sharp.

Can you imagine Biden at the end of his term? Personally, I think he could be dead. 

 

Sad times when people bash others with disabilities. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Politicians should have mandatory retirement at 70.

[placeholder]

52 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

The media, in the UK, tend to portray Americans as being pretty dumb......but I can't believe they are so dumb as to give an old aged pensioner with cognitive issues the presidency. 

Not to worry. Biden is favored to win.

[Rimmer]

Empty post removed

[Pattaya Spotter]

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

 

Yeah. Trump’s election in 2016 was a stunner. Shows voters aren't that smart.

 

 

Sad times when people bash others with disabilities. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Politicians should have mandatory retirement at 70.

Ronald Reagan was a Spring chicken when elected at 69 compared to Joe Biden, 78.

[Hanaguma]

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

We shall find out shortly'

 

Mind you. it does seem, based on last time, that the choice of President is not necessarily made bu the voters (3 million more votes for Mrs Clinton nationally or something?), and if Mr Trump has his way this time, the choice may be made by the Supreme Court!

Yep, Hillary won the popular vote. A totally irrelevant statistic.  It is like playing chess, having your "important piece named after a male monarch" check-mated, then complaining that you should win because you still have more pieces on the board.   I can't think of any country offhand that elects their leader by simple headcount.  Canada doesnt, Japan doesnt, the UK doesnt, Australia doesnt, New Zealand doesnt...

 

Just as an aside, in my chess analogy the system did not allow me to use the four letter word beginning with "K" that rhymes with "sing" to describe a chesspiece.  Strange....

Edited October 30, 2020 by Hanaguma
spelling

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yep, Hillary won the popular vote. A totally irrelevant statistic.  It is like playing chess, having your "important piece named after a male monarch" check-mated, then complaining that you should win because you still have more pieces on the board.   I can't think of any country offhand that elects their leader by simple headcount.  Canada doesnt, Japan doesnt, the UK doesnt, Australia doesnt, New Zealand doesnt...

 

Just as an aside, in my chess analogy the system did not allow me to use the four letter word beginning with "K" that rhymes with "sing" to describe a chesspiece.  Strange....

Couldn't believe you, but true, that word is not allowed. Apparently sensitive here.

Edited October 30, 2020 by stevenl

[herfiehandbag]

31 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yep, Hillary won the popular vote. A totally irrelevant statistic.  It is like playing chess, having your "important piece named after a male monarch" check-mated, then complaining that you should win because you still have more pieces on the board.   I can't think of any country offhand that elects their leader by simple headcount.  Canada doesnt, Japan doesnt, the UK doesnt, Australia doesnt, New Zealand doesnt...

Canada, Japan, the UK, Australia, New Zealand Are all Constitutional Monarchies, with a hereditary monarch as head of state with  a largely ceremonial role. They are actually governed by an executive drawn from their parliaments, which are themselves formed from elected constituency representatives. The same is true of a number of other (principally European) countries.

 

However amongst the long list of countries which lay claim to a Presidential system of government, and whose executive branch of government is headed by a (directly) elected president, we may include France, Russia, Brazil, Portugal, Argentina, Chile, Cyprus, Indonesia and the Philippines. One may dislike the choices which the various electorates have made ( personally I dislike the Presidents of Russia and the Philippines in particular) but all these countries elect their Presidents by a "simple headcount". The United States, which lays claim to the role of world leader amongst the democratic nations, is however it seems, prepared to countenance the selection of their President (and government/executive leader) either by a committee (college) which is able to disregard the popular vote in awarding the Presidency (by a margin of millions of votes nationwide?) or by a Supreme Court which the incumbent President has made no secret of reforming with judges who share his political convictions, and which he has said he expects and intends to actually decide the outcome.

 

Whether that method is acceptable or not is a matter for the American people, but if they are happy with their President being appointed by either the Electoral College or the Supreme Court, despite an electoral majority (popular vote) going to the losing candidate, then they simply cannot claim that their President is elected by a direct democratic process, because he or she isn't. Nor are they really in a position to lecture other states as to the democratic provenance of their government systems.

 

If you claim to be a country governed on democratic principles, with an elected executive President, then the popular vote cannot be described as a "totally irrelevant statistic". Your Chess analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

Edited October 30, 2020 by herfiehandbag

[Hanaguma]

Thanks for the civics lesson herfie. I think you actually proved my larger point. Countries that go for direct elections are in fact less free than those that do not. I would not want to be governed like Russia, the Phils, or Argentina.  Seems like a system more given to abuse considering where it is used. Give me a system that requires true national consensus any day. 

 

Also, politicians in more parliamentary countries are well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of such a system. They know the rules going in. So Hillary and her supporters complaining about losing the election in spite of getting more votes is disingenuous and irrelevant.  It only shows that they don't have true national support.

[herfiehandbag]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

So Hillary and her supporters complaining about losing the election in spite of getting more votes is disingenuous and irrelevant.  It only shows that they don't have true national support.

 They don't have true national support , yet had more (considerably more) votes? 

[xofswen]

Texas is a lock---- for Trump! Only a foolish dreamer would argue otherwise.

PA/OH/FL/WI and so on... indubitably.

 

Ole Joe can step down and continue his sleepie, catatonic state Nov 4th.

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by xofswen

[candide]

7 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Social security is a form of social welfare.  So yes, it's a form of socialism.  Some pay a lot into it, like you and I, some don't, but still get benefits. 

 

An interesting read on pensions.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/122916/are-social-security-benefits-form-socialism.asp

https://www.damgoodpensions.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-pensions/

And invented by a damned socialist! ????

[Hanaguma]

6 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

 They don't have true national support , yet had more (considerably more) votes? 

Yes, they pile up votes in regional power centers (in the Democrat's case, New York and California mainly), and lose many of the rest of the states by smaller margins. In California alone, Hillary got 4 million more votes than Trump. So take them out and the race is basically a tie. 

[herfiehandbag]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Yes, they pile up votes in regional power centers (in the Democrat's case, New York and California mainly), and lose many of the rest of the states by smaller margins. In California alone, Hillary got 4 million more votes than Trump. So take them out and the race is basically a tie. 

Why should one disregard the votes of electors who live in California, yet count those of voters in Florida for example?

[herfiehandbag]

Just now, xofswen said:

Texas is a lock---- for Trump! Only a foolish dreamer would argue otherwise.

PA/OH/FL/WI and so on... indubitably.

 

Ole Joe can step down and continue his sleepie state Nov 4th.

TX '20 Aug Poll Report.pdf 5.6 MB · 2 downloads

That was two months ago - a lot may have changed.

[xofswen]

8 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

That was two months ago - a lot may have changed.

Yes, my bad. Thank you.

[Hanaguma]

6 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Why should one disregard the votes of electors who live in California, yet count those of voters in Florida for example?

They aren't disregarded. Their votes ARE counted, in California.  THey have no bearing in other areas. That is why the country is called the United  ..."States". It doesnt matter if you win a state by one vote or one million.  You get the same number of electors to the Electoral College. 

 

Each state basically has their own election independent of the others. The electors are decided by counting the total of their members in congress and the Senate together.  They get together to form the Electoral College and choose the President. 

 

But I am sure you knew that already. 

 

An equally irrelevant statistic would be to look at how many counties each candidate won. Trump won 2,600 counties, Hillary about 500. Or states-  Hillary won 21 states (plus DC), Trump won 29.