Final Week of US elections

[singalion]

Let's recap on the past weeks in the US election.

 

Is it too close to call? Did the second presidential debate advance chances of any of the candidate?

 

Can we trust the polls?

 

What is your bet on the winner?

[lonelyglobe]

Apparently people regret their earlier vote after Biden's scandal came out but they still can change their vote. 

 

Yeap, I don't think those poll can be trusted, 4 years ago trump was loosing 12% in some of the polls....Biden dementia lah,  he will try his "breast" but cannot leh....

 

I vote for Trump....he is funny ha..... 

Edited October 28, 2020 by lonelyglobe

[singalion]

It is not advisable to take your media information just from one single source. Could make you to the loneliest on the globe...

 

A.

I noted you are repeating this Biden dementia thing on so many posts, but what you saw live on the tv or youtube from Biden, he doesn't seem to suffer from dementia. Not sure what is your purpose on riding this same type of song on dementia. Biden might not be the best speaker and fastest most spontaneous speaker, sometimes searches for words during his speech, but I don't think he suffers dementia. You seem to copy the political smear campaign style from someone who enjoys to repeat falsehoods again and again with the intent to make them look real.

You can get a good glimpse on his speeches at the last town hall interview on 15 Oct

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZZzfrapNvo   *(you need to run forward to 1 hour, then the interview starts)

 

I wish for you, lonelyglobe if at the age of 77 you still have the abilities to run any such interviews and give fluent responses like Biden did. 

 

B.

If you look at Trump, not sure on him.

Trump was so stupid to admit the amount of debt in his interview recently, when he fell trap from that reporter running on live on tv. He even admitted debts are owed to foreign institutions...

Trump: My $421M in Debt Is a ‘Very Small Amount of Money’

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/trump-admitted-400m-debt-231500511.html

At a town hall event on NBC on Thursday evening*, President Donald Trump downplayed the $421 million that he owes his creditors calling it a “very small amount of money.” Asked about recent New York Times reports based on leaked tax information detailing those finances, Trump sought to portray his financial situation as completely unremarkable. *15 Oct 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjwWG6kJ6io

 

C.

On the Biden - Hunter claims:

 

The New York Times Oct. 27, 2020

Which makes it fitting, maybe, that the most interesting controversy of the campaign’s final week is a news media meta argument about how a story should be covered. That story is based on the claims of Tony Bobulinski, a former business associate of Hunter Biden and James Biden, respectively Joe Biden’s son and brother, and on a trove of emails and text messages of uncertain provenance. There are new details about the son and brother’s attempts to cut deals in China based on their family brand, but the key allegation is that Joe Biden himself was pulled into his son’s Chinese negotiations.

On Sunday, my colleague Ben Smith produced the fascinating back story on the story: how the scoop was supposed to go to The Wall Street Journal, with Trump allies mediating, but then another Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani, handed some of the same emails to The New York Post, with a strange back story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, which in turn led to a Post story, accusations of Russian disinformation and an attempted social-media blackout of The Post. Meanwhile, Journal reporters were unable to pin down if Joe Biden had any role in the deal, Bobulinski threw the story to the wider press, and only right-wing outlets ran with it. In the end, both the Journal and this newspaper covered the story in a dry and cautious fashion, describing the Bobulinski allegations while also stressing the lack of definite evidence of the former vice president’s involvement in any deal.

The following article gives an interesting account on how that laptop was deposited at the repair shop the person who "handled" the laptop.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-new-york-post-story/

Here is the conclusion on that story from the "FastFacttrackers"

Our ruling

Several Facebook posts claim "Hunter Biden had 25,000 pics of him torturing and raping children under age 10 in China on his laptop."

There is no evidence to support that. 

The allegation originated on an anonymous internet forum that’s a known source of online disinformation, and conspiracy websites that reported the claims relied on anonymous sources to back them up. The New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop is unconfirmed — but it also does not mention child pornography. The owner of the computer repair shop where the laptop came from told reporters he didn’t see child pornography on it.

Without information to support the allegations, we rate the posts False.

 

another source:

This isn’t a new play. Trump’s attempts to drum up dirt on the Bidens related to Hunter’s work for a Ukrainian gas company ended up getting him impeached last year. And for most of 2020, the efforts from various Republicans to revive the attacks on Hunter seemed to flop.

But now, in a manner seemingly intended to echo the leak of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s hacked emails in October 2016, emails, texts, and photos with or about Hunter are being leaked out through several sources in an attempt to generate a barrage of negative stories about the Bidens before Election Day.

 

 

 

[lonelyglobe]

You support Biden that is your fucking problem, u probably suffer dementia like Biden.....

 

Breaking news: Biden got dementia, vote wisely for those who can.   

 

[singalion]

 

Here facts about changing the vote.

You seem to allude about a false statement from Trump:

 

Trump’s misleading tweet about changing your vote, briefly explained

On Tuesday, the president yet again spread misleading information about voting on Twitter and Facebook.

By Rebecca Heilweil Oct 27, 2020, 6:35pm EDT

 

In early morning posts, the president falsely claimed on Twitter and Facebook that many people had Googled “Can I change my vote?” after the second presidential debate and said those searching wanted to change their vote over to him. Trump also wrongly claimed that most states have a mechanism for changing one’s vote. Actually, just a few states appear to have the ability, and it’s rarely used.

Perhaps the most egregiously false claim in Trump’s recent posts is about “most states” having processes for changing your early vote. In fact, only a few states have such processes, and they can come with certain conditions. For instance, in Michigan, voters who vote absentee can ask for a new ballot by mail or in person until the day before the election.

The Center for Election Innovation’s David Becker told the Associated Press that changing one’s vote is “extremely rare.” Becker explained, “It’s hard enough to get people to vote once — it’s highly unlikely anybody will go through this process twice.”

 

Trump’s posts accelerated searches about changing your vote in places like the swing state of Florida, where changing one’s vote after casting it is not possible. Those numbers are a reminder of the president’s capacity to spread misinformation quickly.

 

Comment:

For most US states you must evidence that you did not cast any absentee ballot ( = vote by mail) or did not receive it. Some very few states have a procedure to permit you to vote in person and then afterwards they will dig out your ballot vote you posted earlier.

this means only a few states allow you to vote again and in that sense give you the option to change your vote. \

But the majority (80%) says you can only vote at the ballot box on election day, if you had not turned in any mail in ballot and you need to bring to the election center your unused mail in ballot to be destroyed, then you will get a normal ballot to vote (once). And this exactly means, you can't change your vote in those states.

 

 

 

Do you seriously believe everything what Trump is saying? 😱

[lonelyglobe]

Nope, trump is famous for talking nonsense,  that's why i laugh at whatever he said. But I don't believe Biden too,  so when both are equally incapable and unreliable, just support the one that is funny 🙉

Edited October 28, 2020 by lonelyglobe

[singalion]

You don't need to come with expletive language against me.

 

If you can't stand for other people having differing opinions, then you shouldn't be at BW.

 

I m not American and never said anywhere I am a Biden or Trump supporter.

 

I just noted your repeated dementia claim on Biden here at BW...

 

What is your intention of bringing it up such a false claim over and over?  it doesn't make you look persuasive at all.

[lonelyglobe]

If u own BW,  trust me I won't even drop by,  perhaps u would be proud enough to let us know where u come from?  

[InBangkok]

What I can't stand is that politically and democratically the USA is totally screwed up. To have an election every 4 years means the entire process has to start at least 18 months in advance and is limited to those with gazillions in the bank (or in the case of Trump a man who wants everyone to believe that he not actually in debt and does have phantom gazillions in Russia, China and goodness knows where else). If I shall be grateful about one thing after the election is that the world will no longer have to put up with day after day after day after day of electioneering news everywhere. 

[singalion]

14 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

What I can't stand is that politically and democratically the USA is totally screwed up. To have an election every 4 years means the entire process has to start at least 18 months in advance and is limited to those with gazillions in the bank (or in the case of Trump a man who wants everyone to believe that he not actually in debt and does have phantom gazillions in Russia, China and goodness knows where else). If I shall be grateful about one thing after the election is that the world will no longer have to put up with day after day after day after day of electioneering news everywhere. 

 

You are right on your assessment of the political and democratic situation of the US. Seems there are some big flaws in the US political system.

 

But looking at most countries in South East Asia? Hm....

 

The issue is: Who is going to propose any reforms in the US.

 

Biden is quite similar to the Clintons who amassed more wealth after Clinton's presidency making money on speeches and advances to book publishings.

Once their political office is past, then they receive monies to speak. 15 mins at a talk can cost 15,000 to 100,000 depending on the event size.

 

Both were lawyers who didn't work very extended in their legal jobs.

 

What is more shocking to me is the monies spent on such elections for ads and campaigns and all the monies flowing in as donations and fund raising.

 

How many people could be fed just on those funds for elections in the US.

 

There seem not to be any people who speak for limiting these huge election funding.

 

But most of the past presidential candidates before Trump weren't coming from a super wealthy background. Surely, the more upper class rich people but not swimming in a wealth like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or even close to that. 

It was one of the critics on Hillary Clinton during her campaign, that she was a coming from a mid level lawyer wealth that increased after her husband's presidency and they even started that Clinton family foundations. Maybe some other tax structures too. I m not focusing on this to make Clintons look bad , most Presidents resorted to such structures to save on taxes once their wealth increased. Clintons are running plenty of foundations on charities, for which they don't gain any revenue.

 

Although Hillary’s earnings lagged during her years in the Senate (2001-09) and President Obama’s cabinet (2009-13), she quickly made up for lost time after leaving public office. She earned $9 million in speaking fees in both 2013 and 2014.

In 2007, the last time Hillary was gearing up for a presidential race, she earned only $123,000 as an author and nothing as a speaker. But in 2015, she made $1 million from speaking and $3 million from writing. Her book Hard Choices was released in June 2014, perfect timing for the election season. Its publisher, Simon & Schuster, paid her $12 million from 2013 to 2015

 

 

On Trump I would need to resort on guessing if he really stands for the wealth he has been claiming. But for sure his background is different coming from the wealthy Trump family where it didn't lack money (in the past).  Most wealth he accumulated from the succession to his father.

[InBangkok]

On 10/28/2020 at 7:09 PM, singalion said:

The issue is: Who is going to propose any reforms in the US.

 

Biden is quite similar to the Clintons who amassed more wealth after Clinton's presidency making money on speeches and advances to book publishings.

Once their political office is past, then they receive monies to speak. 15 mins at a talk can cost 15,000 to 100,000 depending on the event size.

 

Both were lawyers who didn't work very extended in their legal jobs.

 

What is more shocking to me is the monies spent on such elections for ads and campaigns and all the monies flowing in as donations and fund raising.

I really have no issue with former Presidents and politicians making money through book deals and making speeches after they have left office. Everyone does it. Tony Blair in the UK earned a fortune with such deals, as did Margaret Thatcher.

 

What really annoys me is the huge wealth required just to try and run for election. It does not have to be your personal wealth. In fact, I think most running for office do not fund their own campaigns. They need big donors - and big donors want something in return. It may be a right-wing Justice for the Supreme Court. It might be an Ambassadorship. In other words, it's corruption! You don't have to be a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or even a Michael Bloomberg. Actually Bloomberg is presently spending US$100 million of his own money in Florida to try and swing the state to the Democrats.

 

I doubt is there is a truly democratic electoral system anywhere, if by that one means one man one vote. Britain has a constituency system. So it's first past the post. You can have 20,001 voters voting for one party and 20,000 for another. The larger one wins and is supposed to represent all. That may have been the case years ago, but in these days of severely partisan politics where members of parliament/the senate/congress have to tow the party line, the ruling government can in theory effectively pay attention only to the needs of 50.01% of a country. That is not democracy in my book. At least in the UK there are strict limits as to how much every candidate can be spent.

 

But in the USA it is much worse. First there have elections for almost everyone - down to the local sheriff/District Attorney. Second, everyone up for election needs cash, the higher the office the more the money. Third, electioneering goes on for month after month after month. The US elects a President for 4 years. Less than 2 1/2 years later candidates for the next election are starting to raise cash. Fourth, as we have been seeing, each state has a different voting system. Some people can vote weeks ahead of the election date. Others can post their ballots. Some postal ballots can be counted a week or so after the election date as long as the postmark is no later than the election date. There is no unified system even though the President is President of all Americans and all states.

 

Most weird of all is the Electoral College. The good citizens of the USA do not elect Presidents by majority vote. We know that Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. Yet Trump became President. No, they vote for electors who then meet in cabal-like fashion some weeks after the election and pronounce who is to be the President. That is not a major problem as long as the electors obey the will of the voters. Far worse, though, is the nonsensical anomaly of each state having a different number of electoral votes. This system was established by the framers of the US Constitution to ensure that the large coastal states did not have a built in majority over small farm community smaller states in the interior. But it has never been changed to reflect changing patterns of population. So today states with smaller populations are overrepresented and those with larger populations underrepresented. E.g. Wyoming has 1 elector for every 193,000 people. California has 1 elector for every 718,000 people. How anyone can say that this is democratic totally beats me.

 

An electoral college system actually violates every core tenet of democracy. As if that were not bad enough, in the USA it gets even worse. The dominant party in many states resort to gerrymandering - the redrawing of boundaries within the state to favour their party. In this way, certain groups of people can be disenfranchised.

 

I sometimes despair of so-called democracy!

[wilfgene]

3 hours ago, InBangkok said:

I really have no issue with former Presidents and politicians making money through book deals and making speeches after they have left office. Everyone does it. Tony Blair in the UK earned a fortune with such deals, as did Margaret Thatcher.

 

What really annoys me is the huge wealth required just to try and run for election. It does not have to be your personal wealth. In fact, I think most running for office do not fund their own campaigns. They need big donors - and big donors want something in return. It may be a right-wing Justice for the Supreme Court. It might be an Ambassadorship. In other words, it's corruption! You don't have to be a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or even a Michael Bloomberg. Actually Bloomberg is presently spending US$100 million of his own money in Florida to try and swing the state to the Democrats.

 

I doubt is there is a truly democratic electoral system anywhere, if by that one means one man one vote. Britain has a constituency system. So it's first past the post. You can have 20,001 voters voting for one party and 20,000 for another. The larger one wins and is supposed to represent all. That may have been the case years ago, but in these days of severely partisan politics where members of parliament/the senate/congress have to tow the party line, the ruling government can in theory effectively pay attention only to the needs of 50.01% of a country. That is not democracy in my book. At least in the UK there are strict limits as to how much every candidate can be spent.

 

But in the USA it is much worse. First there have elections for almost everyone - down to the local sheriff/District Attorney. Second, everyone up for election needs cash, the higher the office the more the money. Third, electioneering goes on for month after month after month. The US elects a President for 4 years. Less than 2 1/2 years later candidates for the next election are starting to raise cash. Fourth, as we have been seeing, each state has a different voting system. Some people can vote weeks ahead of the election date. Others can post their ballots. Some postal ballots can be counted a week or so after the election date as long as the postmark is no later than the election date. There is no unified system even though the President is President of all Americans and all states.

 

Most weird of all is the Electoral College. The good citizens of the USA do not elect Presidents by majority vote. We know that Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. Yet Trump became President. No, they vote for electors who then meet in cabal-like fashion some weeks after the election and pronounce who is to be the President. That is not a major problem as long as the electors obey the will of the voters. Far worse, though, is the nonsensical anomaly of each state having a different number of electoral votes. This system was established by the framers of the US Constitution to ensure that the large coastal states did not have a built in majority over small farm community smaller states in the interior. But it has never been changed to reflect changing patterns of population. So today states with smaller populations are overrepresented and those with larger populations underrepresented. E.g. Wyoming has 1 elector for every 193,000 people. California has 1 elector for every 718,000 people. How anyone can say that this is democratic totally beats me.

 

An electoral college system actually violates every core tenet of democracy. As if that were not bad enough, in the USA it gets even worse. The dominant party in many states resort to gerrymandering - the redrawing of boundaries within the state to favour their party. In this way, certain groups of people can be disenfranchised.

 

I sometimes despair of so-called democracy!

How did Winston Churchill put it?  'The greatest of Evil, minus all other political systems'?

[InBangkok]

10 hours ago, wilfgene said:

How did Winston Churchill put it?  'The greatest of Evil, minus all other political systems'?

His full quote was -

 

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

 

It's a fair point. Equally fair, I believe, is that democratic institutions and practices should be revised from time to time and altered to make them better and more effective. We all change over time. The make-up of countries changes over time. Why should the USA have a system of electing its President that is centuries old? Why should the UK have a constituency system that was developed even more centuries ago when the only people who could vote were wealthy landowners? 

 

We know that those who came up with the US Electoral College system agreed it was far from ideal. We know that they had debated and argued for a very long time. They country had just thrown off the yolk of colonialism and the last thing they wanted was another king-like figure. One group felt strongly that one-man-one-vote could never work because most of the voters simply would have no idea what they were voting for!! They also feared that a populist President appealing directly to the people would command a dangerous amount of power. Odd, isn't it, that this is precisely what happened with Trump!

 

Time does not stand still. Democratic institutions similarly should evolve over time, not remain like dinosaurs.

 

[singalion]

15 hours ago, InBangkok said:

I really have no issue with former Presidents and politicians making money through book deals and making speeches after they have left office. Everyone does it. Tony Blair in the UK earned a fortune with such deals, as did Margaret Thatcher.

 

What really annoys me is the huge wealth required just to try and run for election. It does not have to be your personal wealth. In fact, I think most running for office do not fund their own campaigns. They need big donors - and big donors want something in return. It may be a right-wing Justice for the Supreme Court. It might be an Ambassadorship. In other words, it's corruption! You don't have to be a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or even a Michael Bloomberg. Actually Bloomberg is presently spending US$100 million of his own money in Florida to try and swing the state to the Democrats.

 

I doubt is there is a truly democratic electoral system anywhere, if by that one means one man one vote. Britain has a constituency system. So it's first past the post. You can have 20,001 voters voting for one party and 20,000 for another. The larger one wins and is supposed to represent all. That may have been the case years ago, but in these days of severely partisan politics where members of parliament/the senate/congress have to tow the party line, the ruling government can in theory effectively pay attention only to the needs of 50.01% of a country. That is not democracy in my book. At least in the UK there are strict limits as to how much every candidate can be spent.

 

But in the USA it is much worse. First there have elections for almost everyone - down to the local sheriff/District Attorney. Second, everyone up for election needs cash, the higher the office the more the money. Third, electioneering goes on for month after month after month. The US elects a President for 4 years. Less than 2 1/2 years later candidates for the next election are starting to raise cash. Fourth, as we have been seeing, each state has a different voting system. Some people can vote weeks ahead of the election date. Others can post their ballots. Some postal ballots can be counted a week or so after the election date as long as the postmark is no later than the election date. There is no unified system even though the President is President of all Americans and all states.

 

Most weird of all is the Electoral College. The good citizens of the USA do not elect Presidents by majority vote. We know that Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. Yet Trump became President. No, they vote for electors who then meet in cabal-like fashion some weeks after the election and pronounce who is to be the President. That is not a major problem as long as the electors obey the will of the voters. Far worse, though, is the nonsensical anomaly of each state having a different number of electoral votes. This system was established by the framers of the US Constitution to ensure that the large coastal states did not have a built in majority over small farm community smaller states in the interior. But it has never been changed to reflect changing patterns of population. So today states with smaller populations are overrepresented and those with larger populations underrepresented. E.g. Wyoming has 1 elector for every 193,000 people. California has 1 elector for every 718,000 people. How anyone can say that this is democratic totally beats me.

 

An electoral college system actually violates every core tenet of democracy. As if that were not bad enough, in the USA it gets even worse. The dominant party in many states resort to gerrymandering - the redrawing of boundaries within the state to favour their party. In this way, certain groups of people can be disenfranchised.

 

I sometimes despair of so-called democracy!

 

I just find this sort of election funding in the US is overblown. Too many people with personal interests can just throw in plenty of money.

Bloomberg throwing money to Biden, Guilani and his gang throwing money to Trump.

 

Most Western democracies (in Europe) have such laws in place to limit funding. Most European politicians coming too close to such business guys would damage their image. In many European countries it is even disallowed to receive benefits from wealthy business people like using their holiday houses in Spain or Caribbean or taking free flights on their lear jets.

 

It is a bit unfair or not correct to say the following:

15 hours ago, InBangkok said:

I doubt is there is a truly democratic electoral system anywhere, if by that one means one man one vote. Britain has a constituency system. So it's first past the post. You can have 20,001 voters voting for one party and 20,000 for another. The larger one wins and is supposed to represent all. That may have been the case years ago, but in these days of severely partisan politics where members of parliament/the senate/congress have to tow the party line, the ruling government can in theory effectively pay attention only to the needs of 50.01% of a country. That is not democracy in my book. At least in the UK there are strict limits as to how much every candidate can be spent.

 

I sometimes despair of so-called democracy!

 

You missed out some European countries. Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Norway to name a few have quite representative electoral systems.

For Germany or other of these countries, the only thing is a 5 % minimum vote share to get seats in parliament, which has historical reasons as it was to avoid having too many small 1 person parties in parliament and then small political groups pressuring the big parties to agree to certain policies for gaining a majority in parliament and then big parties with a close to 50% of the votes not being able to push their own policy.

The bad example on this is Israel who doesn't use to have any limit and then you need coalitions of 5 or more parties to gain a majority and even with the slightest small non issue the government majority breaks down. For Denmark the percentage is at 2%, which some years back they did not have any threshold you needed to pass. But it was introduced to leave very small parties out of parliament. For completion: Israel introduced a 3.25% mininum percentage to gain one seat some years ago as the parliament was fractioned into tiny parties.

 

Some countries sure have some "specialties" like Belgium due to the two big language groups, so the conservative party is split in two parties one for the Flemish part and one for the Walloon part, but the representation in parliament is according to what has been voted.

Models for elections should be built from these examples.

 

The British system is not democratic in my personal view and can only be understood to achieve bigger majorities in parliament. But that was even defeated in the past elections before 2019 as none of the bigger party managed their own majority at all. In the UK you can have a 26% guy taking the parliamentary seat while 51 % might have gone to two other candidates.

 

The critic on voting models based in the European countries I mentioned earlier is, mostly not one single party would achieve a majority, therefore coalition governments build of two parties are common. That's the trade off of these voting systems.

 

But I find them more democratic as they come nearer to the voter's say. And they allow swings from one party to another, which doesn't seem unhealthy in my personal view.

 

If you compare such systems with the US election system, then you would see how outdated the US system is. It should have been reformed after the second World War.

And laws should have been put in place to reduce the gerrymandering in the states for federal elections.

 

There is another difference to continental European election systems, which is in the US inherited from the English law and that is about the electorate. In most European countries voters don't need to register for elections as there is a system in place for automatically having the voters on record. If you are registered in your constituency then you are part of the electorate. The background is, these countries have citizen registers, if you move your place or residence within the country, you would need to register at the local community (for tax purposes too). It's not like these countries (UK, US, etc) where nobody really knows who lives in their local area because there is no community register in place. The UK has defended for not having an ID for years... but just take Covid-19 ... in the end you don't even know who stays where...

What means in these European countries there is a citizen registry.

If parliamentary votes are approaching roughly 3 months prior to the date is the cut off period and all voters on record are eligible to vote. If you moved within the 3 months period you can check (nowadays even online) if the local authority got your record or with the official election supervisor.

 

The US seems to have a system to scare off as many eligible voters from voting and make it unreasonably complicated to be added to the electoral register for each constituency. in particular for this election you read many horror stories to deprive voters from their voting rights. Texas seems to be the worst place to stay as a voter.

 

In European countries you don't have voters requiring to go to courts to fight for your right to vote... But for Texas , once you're not on record, you often have to go to courts... to claim your right to vote and be placed into the election register.

 

The US has the problem for people thinking it is the most brilliant democracy but other parts with different models have outlived that philosophy. Nothing is any longer great about the US democracy. There are many flaws and construction sites. But can the parties in the US cooperate to create reform???

 

Not sure if there is even any awareness for the requirements of reforms or any academic discussion on such topics...

 

[InBangkok]

Another piece of idiocy in the US electoral system is the ten weeks or so between election day and the inauguration of the new President and his team. Why? In the UK and some other countries the changeover takes place within 24 hours. In the US a defeated President has weeks and weeks to undertake all manner of mayhem that is perfectly legal. He doesn't need the Senate and he doesn't need Congress. He just needs a pen and can sign any number of Executive orders.

 

And then there is the President's unlimited power of pardon. Trump has already pardoned a number of oddballs. All those who committed crimes during his 2016 election campaign and his Presidency can now look forward to their free passes out of jail. I'll bet the framers of the Constitution never believed any President would stop so low.

[Steve5380]

Fortunately, the US Constitution allows for changes in the electoral process.  All is needed are amendments.   We will be so fortunate if one party prevails in Congress and the White House, and has the good will to improve things.   Although the democrats if we win will have SO MUCH to change back what was destroyed by the current administration.  But the democrats are the PROGRESSIVE ones,  and already they could do some good in rebuilding the supreme court.

 

This fight between the two predominant parties is really nasty.  But what is even nastier is the difference in ideologies.  If this were not so,  it would be much easier to find consensus and pass necessary legislation that both parties would agree upon. 

 

What hurts us is so much fanaticism.  This gets multiplied when religion gets in the picture.   One issue is abortion.  Because of abortion,  Christians are directed to vote for Trump and not for Biden.  Why?  Trump appoint supreme justices who are pro-life,  Biden appoints pro-choice.  

 

"Pro-choice" is a correct label.  NOBODY wants abortion.  What progressives want is to give the choice to the pregnant woman. 

"Pro-life" is a false, deceiving label.  If the religious organizations were pro-life,  all their members would be forced to be vegetarians.

IF this were not enough, the phobia Christians have against pro-choice is not justified by doctrine.  NO.  There is nothing in the Bible that even mentions abortion, neither in the OT nor the NT.   Before Christianity,  Judaism did not condemn abortion because it considers that life begins at birth, not at conception.  So a fetus IS NOT a living human being.  Have a look at this:

 

https://time.com/3582434/6-abortion-myths/

 

And because of abortion,  the religious right will vote for this despicable Trump, a criminal responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Americans to covid-19 and other "crimes against Americans".

 

On 10/28/2020 at 1:50 AM, lonelyglobe said:

 

I vote for Trump....he is funny ha..... 

 

 

I have come to adopt a principle:  a person cannot be pro-Trump, vote for him, and be a decent human being at the same time.

 

Sorry @lonelyglobe, you fall into this category, but maybe instead of not having decency,  you have been so weak that they were able to wash your brain. Although something else speaks against you:  you see the US election as something "funny ha...".   Maybe you laugh also at funerals? 

 

You are not American and therefore you don't give a damn about what happens here.  But this election is much, much more serious.  The person who is the American president has an enormous influence in the economics and politics of the whole world.  So many wars were started by the stupidity of American presidents!

.

Edited October 31, 2020 by Steve5380

[lonelyglobe]

19 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

Fortunately, the US Constitution allows for changes in the electoral process.  All is needed are amendments.   We will be so fortunate if one party prevails in Congress and the White House, and has the good will to improve things.   Although the democrats if we win will have SO MUCH to change back what was destroyed by the current administration.  But the democrats are the PROGRESSIVE ones,  and already they could do some good in rebuilding the supreme court.

 

This fight between the two predominant parties is really nasty.  But what is even nastier is the difference in ideologies.  If this were not so,  it would be much easier to find consensus and pass necessary legislation that both parties would agree upon. 

 

What hurts us is so much fanaticism.  This gets multiplied when religion gets in the picture.   One issue is abortion.  Because of abortion,  Christians are directed to vote for Trump and not for Biden.  Why?  Trump appoint supreme justices who are pro-life,  Biden appoints pro-choice.  

 

"Pro-choice" is a correct label.  NOBODY wants abortion.  What progressives want is to give the choice to the pregnant woman. 

"Pro-life" is a false, deceiving label.  If the religious organizations were pro-life,  all their members would be forced to be vegetarians.

IF this were not enough, the phobia Christians have against pro-choice is not justified by doctrine.  NO.  There is nothing in the Bible that even mentions abortion, neither in the OT nor the NT.   Before Christianity,  Judaism did not condemn abortion because it considers that life begins at birth, not at conception.  So a fetus IS NOT a living human being.  Have a look at this:

 

https://time.com/3582434/6-abortion-myths/

 

And because of abortion,  the religious right will vote for this despicable Trump, a criminal responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Americans to covid-19 and other "crimes against Americans".

 

 

I have come to adopt a principle:  a person cannot be pro-Trump, vote for him, and be a decent human being at the same time.

 

Sorry @lonelyglobe, you fall into this category, but maybe instead of not having decency,  you have been so weak that they were able to wash your brain. Although something else speaks against you:  you see the US election as something "funny ha...".   Maybe you laugh also at funerals? 

 

You are not American and therefore you don't give a damn about what happens here.  But this election is much, much more serious.  The person who is the American president has an enormous influence in the economics and politics of the whole world.  How many wars were not started by the stupidity of American presidents?

.

Yeap,  if u want me to laugh at your funeral,  just inform me. And u just mention stupidity of American president,  no one can be blame, only blame yourself why America cannot attract talents,  maybe the pay of president there was too low? Like SG,  the pay is one of the highest in the world so that it always attract talents to serve the country. 

 

Also blame the Americans,  why they voted trump 4 years ago knowing that he is crazy and will do lots of crazy stuff? If he were to stand in SG,  not only will he got no chance, his election deposit will definitely be forfeited due to below minimum percentage.

 

If u guys want to do crazy things,  then have to be prepared for the crazy consequences, so don't try to argue anymore.

Edited October 31, 2020 by lonelyglobe

[Steve5380]

2 minutes ago, lonelyglobe said:

So don't try to argue anymore.

 

It's you who should not argue here anymore.  This thread is NOT about Singapore government, but US government.  And if you think that there are stupid Americans, you are right. And I am right in that there are stupid Singaporeans.  And a Singaporean who laughs at the seriousness of the election in another country and on top of that says that he would vote for the most abominable candidate there because "...he is funny, ha...",  is definitely stupid. 

[lonelyglobe]

Takes a stupid to know another stupid. 

Edited October 31, 2020 by lonelyglobe

[singalion]

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

Fortunately, the US Constitution allows for changes in the electoral process.  All is needed are amendments.   We will be so fortunate if one party prevails in Congress and the White House, and has the good will to improve things.   Although the democrats if we win will have SO MUCH to change back what was destroyed by the current administration.  But the democrats are the PROGRESSIVE ones,  and already they could do some good in rebuilding the supreme court.

 

This fight between the two predominant parties is really nasty.  But what is even nastier is the difference in ideologies.  If this were not so,  it would be much easier to find consensus and pass necessary legislation that both parties would agree upon. 

 

What hurts us is so much fanaticism.  This gets multiplied when religion gets in the picture.   One issue is abortion.  Because of abortion,  Christians are directed to vote for Trump and not for Biden.  Why?  Trump appoint supreme justices who are pro-life,  Biden appoints pro-choice.  

 

"Pro-choice" is a correct label.  NOBODY wants abortion.  What progressives want is to give the choice to the pregnant woman. 

"Pro-life" is a false, deceiving label.  If the religious organizations were pro-life,  all their members would be forced to be vegetarians.

IF this were not enough, the phobia Christians have against pro-choice is not justified by doctrine.  NO.  There is nothing in the Bible that even mentions abortion, neither in the OT nor the NT.   Before Christianity,  Judaism did not condemn abortion because it considers that life begins at birth, not at conception.  So a fetus IS NOT a living human being.  Have a look at this:

 

https://time.com/3582434/6-abortion-myths/

 

And because of abortion,  the religious right will vote for this despicable Trump, a criminal responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Americans to covid-19 and other "crimes against Americans".

 

 

As to changing election laws or the constitution any party would require a supermajority in the Senate. The democrats won't get there.

Changes to the constitution must come being supported by both parties. But the Republicans have no interest to change because mostly they had been the profiting from the outdated constitution.

 

Had a long distance conversation on the Supreme Court with my mother and we concluded in any other country that Barrett had been disqualified for being nominated to a supreme court judge in most countries as she seems already quite particular in her views. But the main reasons had been: She just simply served 3 years at the US Court of Appeal 7h circuit and she had been appointed into that position by Trump himself. The main reason would have been "lack of sufficient experience". Just 3 years at a higher court seems not sufficient for holding a position at a Supreme Court. Nobody looked at this and it shows the requirements to become Supreme Court judge are too low.

While most democratic Senators keep silent on the religious beliefs as but placing such fundamentalist religious people into such courts is somehow like placing the type of Osama Bin Laden as the head of the FBI. I found it amazing that none of the Senators dared to ask, whether the constitution is considered prior to her religious beliefs or not. The third thing is: In other countries she would have been disqualified as she is Catholic due to the fact that the Supreme Court now holds 7 out of 9 Supreme Court judges who are Catholic. Does this reflect the society? How about the "diversity" they always praise in the US? Shouldn't the Supreme Court be a mirror of the US society???

 

Let them change Roe vs Wade (if they dare), look at Poland, the people (ladies) don't permit the fundamentalists to rule into their freedoms. Even if they dare to take it away, the backlash will be huge. The women will tear down Trumps "provisional" wall to Mexico (and in particular the one in Colorado !!! ha ha) or go to Canada.

 

It looks like in your remaining life time dear Steve, you will need to bear with these judges if all of the current keep their office until their death.

 

Another reform required. ha ha. In most European countries, the Supreme Court judges are voted by a commission which contains a picture of the parliament, this requires consent of a majority made out by different and often even opposing parties. If one party objects you don't get your candidate through.

This assists to keep the judges on a high professional level and will exclude judges with extremist personal views from the onset.

 

The election of judges to the highest court in the US seems to be another flaw in the US democratic system.

 

The US democracy is no longer any model for serious democratic systems. Sorry Steve.

 

My last point: This pro life and pro choice discussion has nothing to do with settling the abortion issue, as criminal law and religious beliefs are distinct. The issue must be settled as a societal issue. Leave religious beliefs out of the discussion. Full stop.

[singalion]

1 hour ago, lonelyglobe said:

Takes a stupid to know another stupud. 

You meant stopus?

 

Your latest posts at BW sound more and more often very similar to those from that disturbing Guest, should we start to wonder whether...???

 

I m sure many people object to the opulent pay of Minister's and PM's salary in Singapore and whether it guarantees talent or better politicians can be discussed with opposing views too. Even if they are "talent" can lead to a controversial discussion. You're heading on a very slippery slope here...

 

And Steve: You can have your personal opinion on people but avoid insulting them at BW.

Singaporeans tend to forget their country is a small tiny dot of the size of a medium sized city in the US but the US a huge country ...

Naturally, governing such a huge country is much different.

 

It looks like there are even judges who vote for Trump or speak out in favour of Trump.

You forget the angle for many people having been manipulated by certain promises of Trump and he was able to appeal to those who seem forgotten or suffered from effects of globalisation. I m sure all those hard working Americans who voted for him are quite decent human beings (even if they voted Republican). Lots of them learnt it the hard lesson because the factories are gone even during Trump's term... and many of his decisions made their situation even worse...

 

‘I regret voting for him': Ohioans hit by GM plant closure reflect on Trump

Trump’s message of bringing back jobs resonated with workers – but after GM announced it was shuttering the plant, some questioned why they voted for him...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/lordstown-ohio-trump-gm-plant-election

[lonelyglobe]

43 minutes ago, singalion said:

You meant stopus?

 

Your latest posts at BW sound more and more often very similar to those from that disturbing Guest, should we start to wonder whether...???

 

I m sure many people object to the opulent pay of Minister's and PM's salary in Singapore and whether it guarantees talent or better politicians can be discussed with opposing views too. Even if they are "talent" can lead to a controversial discussion. You're heading on a very slippery slope here...

 

And Steve: You can have your personal opinion on people but avoid insulting them at BW.

Singaporeans tend to forget their country is a small tiny dot of the size of a medium sized city in the US but the US a huge country ...

Naturally, governing such a huge country is much different.

 

It looks like there are even judges who vote for Trump or speak out in favour of Trump.

You forget the angle for many people having been manipulated by certain promises of Trump and he was able to appeal to those who seem forgotten or suffered from effects of globalisation. I m sure all those hard working Americans who voted for him are quite decent human beings (even if they voted Republican). Lots of them learnt it the hard lesson because the factories are gone even during Trump's term... and many of his decisions made their situation even worse...

 

‘I regret voting for him': Ohioans hit by GM plant closure reflect on Trump

Trump’s message of bringing back jobs resonated with workers – but after GM announced it was shuttering the plant, some questioned why they voted for him...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/29/lordstown-ohio-trump-gm-plant-election

Thanks for pointing out the spelling mistakes, nope,  I really mean stupid.

 

Small country can find talents and big countries can't, well,  then another 4 years for trump. 

[Steve5380]

13 hours ago, lonelyglobe said:

Takes a stupid to know another stupud. 

 

Why you post such a stupid comment?  And a false one too!

"Stupid" is not an insult,  it is an adjective:  "having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense"

Acting stupid is very common, and any smart person will recognize this. So you don't have to be stupid to recognize stupidity.

 

If you don't like to be seen as stupid, then please post in a more intelligent way   

 

11 hours ago, singalion said:

 

It looks like there are even judges who vote for Trump or speak out in favour of Trump.

You forget the angle for many people having been manipulated by certain promises of Trump and he was able to appeal to those who seem forgotten or suffered from effects of globalisation. I m sure all those hard working Americans who voted for him are quite decent human beings (even if they voted Republican). Lots of them learnt it the hard lesson because the factories are gone even during Trump's term... and many of his decisions made their situation even worse...

 

 

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you, and I hope you don't feel insulted.

There is a point where willful ignorance and disdain for facts cut into a person's decency.   I cannot imagine any person who functions in American society not having realized that Trump is a liar, a deceiver, a con man.  Furthermore, it is hard to ignore what happened with his handling of the pandemic.  How he lied about its seriousness to favor his chances for reelection, and how he is lying about it even today.  It is hard to imagine people not having heard about the fate of refugees who had their children taken away and lost.  And it is hard to ignore the way this individual insults everyone and displays malevolence.   People who in spite of all of this vote for him,  because a perceived economic gain,  are not different from the Germans who supported Hitler after WWI for the way he helped the country get out of their big recession.  Such values don't reflect decency.

.

Edited October 31, 2020 by Steve5380

[lonelyglobe]

2 minutes ago, Steve5380 said:

 

Why you post such a stupid commend?  And a false one too!

"Stupid" is not an insult,  it is an adjective:  "having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense"

Acting stupid is very common, and any smart person will recognize this. So you don't have to be stupid to recognize stupidity.

 

If you don't like to be seen as stupid, then please post in a more intelligent way   

 

 

 

Unfortunately, I can only talk to intelligent people in a intelligent way and stupid people in a stupid way, otherwise they won't be able to understand. 😁

[Steve5380]

9 minutes ago, lonelyglobe said:

Unfortunately, I can only talk to intelligent people in a intelligent way and stupid people in a stupid way, otherwise they won't be able to understand. 😁

 

You should be able also to speak in an intelligent way to stupid people,  and even in a stupid way to intelligent people.  People who will understand the stupidity and take it with humor.  But this topic is nothing to laugh about.   Intelligence is what my country needs at this time to recover from the present disastrous government. 

 

I think that Biden has the capacity to engage intelligently many stupid people in a kind way, like Obama did,  while Trump intelligently manipulates stupid people by saying stupidities and falsities.  

.

Edited October 31, 2020 by Steve5380

[lonelyglobe]

Obama 😲

very good in talking only...... but I suppose that is what politician need.

[Steve5380]

1 minute ago, lonelyglobe said:

Obama 😲

very good in talking only...... but I suppose that is what politician need.

 

I find that Obama is sincere in what he politically says.  And he is an excellent speaker (assuming that what he says comes from his own mind and is not all prepared by some ghost writer).  His behavior in office was consistent with what he spoke.  Many criticize him for all the unfulfilled expectations,  but it was the electorate who handicapped him in the mid-term elections by favoring a republican house in congress.  This body of congress opposed every positive legislation Obama would come up with.

[singalion]

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

 

I find that Obama is sincere in what he politically says.  And he is an excellent speaker (assuming that what he says comes from his own mind and is not all prepared by some ghost writer).  His behavior in office was consistent with what he spoke.  Many criticize him for all the unfulfilled expectations,  but it was the electorate who handicapped him in the mid-term elections by favoring a republican house in congress.  This body of congress opposed every positive legislation Obama would come up with.

Maybe.

But he avoided taking decisions on many issues and maybe that is a result why Trump had a chance to be elected 4 years ago.

Even with a Republican majority in congress. he was not the first one to be faced with such a situation. Reagan was, Bush was.

But they reached out to find a compromise.

The past 10 years both parties weren't very skilled in finding a compromise but insisted on their programs resulting in not resolving the issues on hand.

 

However, I think uniting the Americans Obama had better skills than Trump.

 

But I need to agree a lil bit with lonelyglobe: In my personal view Obama was one of the weaker presidents.

 

I just wonder whether Steve already bought a gun at Walmart to prepare for the worst or any Trump voter approaching Steve's property in Texas. I think Steve is living in the wrong state. haha

[singalion]

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

 

Why you post such a stupid commend?  And a false one too!

"Stupid" is not an insult,  it is an adjective:  "having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense"

Acting stupid is very common, and any smart person will recognize this. So you don't have to be stupid to recognize stupidity.

 

If you don't like to be seen as stupid, then please post in a more intelligent way   

 

 

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you, and I hope you don't feel insulted.

There is a point where willful ignorance and disdain for facts cut into a person's decency.   I cannot imagine any person who functions in American society not having realized that Trump is a liar, a deceiver, a con man.  Furthermore, it is hard to ignore what happened with his handling of the pandemic.  How he lied about its seriousness to favor his chances for reelection, and how he is lying about it even today.  It is hard to imagine people not having heard about the fate of refugees who had their children taken away and lost.  And it is hard to ignore the way this individual insults everyone and displays malevolence.   People who in spite of all of this vote for him,  because a perceived economic gain,  are not different from the Germans who supported Hitler after WWI for the way he helped the country get out of their big recession.  Such values don't reflect decency.

.

 

Sorry, I was talking about the voters in 2016 who voted for Trump.

For those who vote for him again this time, I have no regrets too.

 

But you know, if you're jobless in one of the old factory belt states, maybe you believe the myth that the trade agreements shifted the factories out of the US and maybe hope Trump will take action to bring factories and jobs back. These people might not have anything to loose so they might elect Trump again even knowing he sends weird twitters, has plenty of twist and turns and talks a lot hydroxychloroquine. That's the problem with these "populists".

(Same goes for the UK with Brexit, does any reasonable person seriously think they will be better off???)

 

 

[Steve5380]

8 hours ago, singalion said:

 

I just wonder whether Steve already bought a gun at Walmart to prepare for the worst or any Trump voter approaching Steve's property in Texas. I think Steve is living in the wrong state. haha

 

Well, I have a gun, a little 38 special, in my attic.  I may bring it down and put it under my bed.  But I live in a good neighborhood, and my house is one of the oldest and least appealing.  If a dangerous mob would invade my neighborhood, the last thing I would do is to shoot at it.  Instead, I would go outside in my old home clothes and stand around.  If they burn down my house,  the value of my property is mostly in the land and not in the house, and I have insurance  (although I don't know if it would cover for fire due to vandalism).  But I don't lose hope that Texas may turn around and change from red to blue state.  It is already very close.

 

 

[amicablyalan]

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/30/opinions/donald-trump-deserves-second-term-jennings/index.html

 

Interesting op ed

[Steve5380]

9 minutes ago, amicablyalan said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/30/opinions/donald-trump-deserves-second-term-jennings/index.html

 

Interesting op ed

 

Yesssss.... why not?

 

Hitler did much good for Germany,  who had gone through a terrible depression after world war 1, which it lost and was charged with heavy restitutions, leading to the collapse of their economy and the complete devaluation of their money.  My family had an album with the bills of Marks (their currency) in the millions, but worth nearly nothing.  They told me that in the end the weighted the money instead of counting it because it was little more than paper. And of course, hunger was rampant and they had to eat every creature that moved.   So Hitler was great for the economy,  for their industry, he converted the country from a slum into the most powerful nation in Europe.  Heil Hitler !!!  And we all know how that ended  

[InBangkok]

23 hours ago, singalion said:

Maybe.

But he avoided taking decisions on many issues and maybe that is a result why Trump had a chance to be elected 4 years ago.

Even with a Republican majority in congress. he was not the first one to be faced with such a situation. Reagan was, Bush was.

But they reached out to find a compromise.

The past 10 years both parties weren't very skilled in finding a compromise but insisted on their programs resulting in not resolving the issues on hand.

 

However, I think uniting the Americans Obama had better skills than Trump.

I think there is one omission from your fine discussion of the situation in US politics. A US President can only get so much done unless he has the backing of the US Senate. I can remember the days when people like Mike Mansfield and George Mitchell were the leaders of the Senate. These worldly men were aware of the importance of compromise even whilst pushing the agendas of their own party.

 

Compare that with the situation soon after Obama was elected. The Leader of the Senate was a Democrat Harry Reid. Why, being a democrat and with a Democrat majority in the Senate, Obama did not push to get through much more of his agenda I have always failed to understand. He then had to face a far more partisan Leader when the Republicans elected  the supremely partisan Mitch McConnell as their Minority Leader in 2010. Almost McConnell's first pronouncement was the determination to ensure that Obama would be a one-term President. In the 2012 Election, Obama was re-elected but the Democrats lost the Senate. From that moment McConnell was against compromise of any form. His sole aim was to get a Republican President in 2016. 

 

When a conservative Justice vacancy occurred on the Supreme Court in early 2016, you will recall McConnell's dreadful campaign to ensure Obama's nomination would not even be given a hearing in an election year - even though the election was 10 months away. He got his way. When Trump was elected his first job was to get a new conservative on to the Court. Judicial appointments throughout the USA are a prerogative of the President and the Senate. When Obama left office, there were more than 100 senior judicial vacancies only because McConnell had failed to permit discussion on any of Obama's nominees.

 

Worse was the utter hypocrisy of McConnell and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the snake Lindsay Graham, who both said that they would never support the appointment of a vacancy on the Supreme Court during an election year. Yet what did they do? As soon as the liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, they lost no time in electing one of the most conservative judges on to the Court. These were Graham's words -

 

 

 

[amicablyalan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/us/politics/trump-presidency-dishonesty.html

 

The greatest legacy Trump brings to the White House is the erosion of public trust. A leader lies. 

[wilfgene]

13 hours ago, alex3689 said:

Why do we cares about those irreverent stuff 

The Spratleys.

[wilfgene]

12 hours ago, amicablyalan said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/01/us/politics/trump-presidency-dishonesty.html

 

The greatest legacy Trump brings to the White House is the erosion of public trust. A leader lies. 

Watergate?

[singalion]

14 hours ago, alex3689 said:

Why do we cares about those irreverent stuff 

 

It might be irrelevant to  you because you personally think it might not have any impact on you.

I assume you meant to write we are taking it too serious.

 

But you might be wrong in your personal assessment and looks like a thought too short from you and I tell you why:

 

For many years the USA has been a model for creating democracy and pushing a democracy move in the world.

Even the political system in Singapore might have been different without taking ideas and precedents from the US.

 

If such a model role erodes with time then who will be setting the scene or what can be rely on?

 

Further, if the US is in decline it will impact economy, shares, value of investments.

This boils down to investments made by Temasek, GIC in the US or other parts of the world.

It might bring down your own investments if you placed money into funds.

It might even make your purchases with Credit cards more expensive if you need to pay higher fees in future. You might not see them on your credit card now, but note retailers need to pay a fee and they will factor this fee into their sale price.

And note, your traveling might be more expensive in future if the US Dollar is in decline.

Roughly 61% of the foreign exchange is still in US dollars.

If you book something online, let's say a hotel in Thailand, the booking platform or the hotel will convert their local price into US Dollars...

 

Do you still think it is "irrelevant" stuff?

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by singalion
.

[singalion]

On 11/1/2020 at 1:36 PM, InBangkok said:

I think there is one omission from your fine discussion of the situation in US politics. A US President can only get so much done unless he has the backing of the US Senate. I can remember the days when people like Mike Mansfield and George Mitchell were the leaders of the Senate. These worldly men were aware of the importance of compromise even whilst pushing the agendas of their own party.

 

Compare that with the situation soon after Obama was elected. The Leader of the Senate was a Democrat Harry Reid. Why, being a democrat and with a Democrat majority in the Senate, Obama did not push to get through much more of his agenda I have always failed to understand. He then had to face a far more partisan Leader when the Republicans elected  the supremely partisan Mitch McConnell as their Minority Leader in 2010. Almost McConnell's first pronouncement was the determination to ensure that Obama would be a one-term President. In the 2012 Election, Obama was re-elected but the Democrats lost the Senate. From that moment McConnell was against compromise of any form. His sole aim was to get a Republican President in 2016. 

 

When a conservative Justice vacancy occurred on the Supreme Court in early 2016, you will recall McConnell's dreadful campaign to ensure Obama's nomination would not even be given a hearing in an election year - even though the election was 10 months away. He got his way. When Trump was elected his first job was to get a new conservative on to the Court. Judicial appointments throughout the USA are a prerogative of the President and the Senate. When Obama left office, there were more than 100 senior judicial vacancies only because McConnell had failed to permit discussion on any of Obama's nominees.

 

Worse was the utter hypocrisy of McConnell and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the snake Lindsay Graham, who both said that they would never support the appointment of a vacancy on the Supreme Court during an election year. Yet what did they do? As soon as the liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, they lost no time in electing one of the most conservative judges on to the Court. These were Graham's words -

 

 

 

 

Because Obama and the Democrats thought they would not lose the election.

 

The political rule goes: Don't procrastinate . You need to do the most difficult things in the first 2 years.

 

Politicians are not less hypocrite than common people. The problem is: the opposing party will take revenge and this is how you erode a democratic system.

You don't win by eroding systems.

 

But the one who corrupted the system from the start was the President. Because he nominated the judge for the Supreme court and the proceedings began.

If the President doesn't upkeep any morals. then...?

 

[InBangkok]

41 minutes ago, singalion said:

But the one who corrupted the system from the start was the President. Because he nominated the judge for the Supreme court and the proceedings began.

If the President doesn't upkeep any morals. then...?

Trump was always going to be a highly flawed President. He was basically - failed businessman who latched on to celebrity status and saw how it could increase business opportunities and his own public popularity. It was fortunate for him that in 2016 he was up against a deeply flawed Hillary Clinton. As Obama pointed out, she was probably one of the most qualified candidates to be President, but she blew the election.

 

Trump was extremely fortunate in having the lizard McConnell running the Senate. Both men had a loathing of Obama. As we have seen, Trump was determined to undo everything that Obama had achieved. Packing the Supreme Court with right wing Justices who are young enough to sit for a generation was just one more stab at Obama and what they felt he stood for.

 

Another poster has asked why this thread is important. One word - China. As Trump has been pulling the USA and chumming up to dictators like Xi, Xi has got on with increasing China’s influence in the world unchecked. Having effectively emasculated the one country two systems in Hong Kong, we learn that he is determined to get Taiwan back into the mainland’s control by whatever means before he leaves office. 
 

That will mean force. Only the USA presently has the military force to ensure that does not happen without starting World War 3. But under Trump and his base of followers in the heartland of the USA - followers who mostly have never been outside the USA and probably have little idea why the USA should be involved in foreign adventures - will America really care enough to help defend democratic Taiwan? It’s unlikely.

[singalion]

The funny thing is : 5 years ago if you said in any conversation "Trump businessman? He is actually a 5 time bankrupt." All people at the table looked at you like your are creating fake news without a twitter account. And there was this disbelief as if you said something from mars.

I wrote it before, it were always the banks who saved his ass for the past 50 years (because they had been the big losers if he had been declared bankrupt by a court).

 

Actually, if you listened to him, he said it before, increasing the "Trump" brand was his aim. You put "Trump" on a coffee mug, you earn from the licence fees.

 

On Hillary Clinton I tend to object again/ or agree (as you take it). Personally I think she had the character to be a good President, even better than Obama. It's just that many saw her too ambitious, too eager and made her look money greedy. There was a big jealousy from the "establishment" on her and the less fortunate just couldn't relate to her. She wasn't able to play that cowgirls with dirt on the boots. I bet had she done some rodeo on a mid central US state and sang some Country on some town celebrations she could have lured some more voters to support her.

All this email thing was blown up. There had been other guys who used personal servers for government work prior to her incident. I remember even one FBI Director was caught some years back.

Her mistake was to take the voters for granted. Had she moved a bit towards the jobless, had visited the swing states with more ambition (and maybe digged out the flaws of Trump more efficiently). She was a bit weak in countering Trump with all his snarky remarks on her. But strategy wise on Trump she probably made the right thing in keeping silent, but for common people it looked like admitting and Trump was able to play his song on her. But with some more visits she might have been the President and we would have never talked about Trump or Biden.

And sure the Comey thing broke her neck. That was a quite stupid move from him just some days before the election day.

Guess what the same computer repair shop as the Biden Hunter allegations (Seems there is only one reliable computer repair shop in the US.)

 

The Western world is always hoping China will move to a more democratic country, then integrating Taiwan will not be an issue. Nobody wants this divide. But China is not making any move to open up the political one party system. I bet Nixon had been already hoping this while smoking Cuban cigars with Mao...

But you are correct: The world must be united against China in making them to accept more rules and abide by rules. And that was the big mistake of Trump instead of gathering allies to his policy around him he stung into the hornets nest and appeared as the big elephant in the porcelain shop. And for sure: You don't get China on a table to negotiate something by force or dictating it to them. If he had been a good brilliant deal maker and business man he always claims to be, he would have known the word "Win Win", but childishly he only knows : "I win, you lost".

 

This is my favourite photo on the Trump Presidency on international politics and his allies :

 

 

T: "No, I never sign anything like this..."

M: "Are you sure, Donald, you still just want to buy Greenland? But then we Germans would give asylum to the ice bears..."

 

 

T: "You can have your ice bears plus 1 Million illegals from the US and I personally top it with 1 Million bottles of Californian sweet wine, Angela... but send me one of these guys from the East of your country who know how to build a strong wall!"

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by singalion
.

[InBangkok]

5 minutes ago, alex3689 said:

indeed, teach me how you plan to change PAP first

 

If that’s what you want to discuss, start a new thread. This is about US Elections

[amicablyalan]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics/donald-trump-joe-biden-pittsburgh-post-gazette/index.html

 

Vote Trump not because of what he did/didn't do or who he was/wasn't., but because of pity... "the biggest incumbent underdog in 40 years".

[singalion]

Looks like we came to the final day.

 

We can only hope the results will be quite clear and not a repeat of this Al Gore - Bush election.

 

Otherwise it will drag on until January. Hopefully no street fights or even shooting on the streets...

 

 

[DeMarko]

DT gonna win as the remaining states with high electoral votes are in favour of DT.

[InBangkok]

I have no idea who will win the remaining states, but with millions of votes still not counted so many hours after the close of polling, counting stopped overnight in one of the key states and the final tally of votes not being available till 10 days after the election (military votes), I remain appalled at the enormous inefficiency of the US voting system. It is appalling to think that the country which spawned Microsoft, Apple and a host of other tech giants cannot come up with an efficient national electoral system rather than one stuck in the dark ages! Oh I know each state wants to go its own way, but for a National Presidential election that is just plain archaic!

[singalion]

It is not my aim to speak out for the current election and voting system in the US.

 

Clearly the voting system needs reforms.

 

And maybe a country wide federal basis of common laws on certain issues, like vote counting, how votes can be made, eligibility to vote and what votes might be void.

Having 50 states running with different rules on the validity of votes seems a bit weird.

 

But don't forget the background or historical reason for the electoral college and for the US not having a simple majority vote.

 

The US is a federal state. If there had been a majority vote, states with a high population would decide the votes. It might be then sufficient for 5 states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania) to make up for any outcome of the vote. In order to give the smaller less populated states a say, the electoral college was put in place where each state has a certain amount of persons to represent the state in the electoral college (for example currently: California 55 (population 40 mil), Kansas 6 (3 mil).

To become President in the US, you need the majority in the electoral college.

This serves to the smaller states making up the Federation not to be neglected.

 

7  to 8 US states with the biggest populations would have already a majority of the total US population. Small states would be marginalised.

 

In my view, the US requires reforms on common voting grounds to eradicate injustices on how votes are valid, who can vote, who is excluded to vote and what rules govern voting in general.

Just take the mail in ballots or absentee votes. Every state is running it's own policy. In one state votes may be counted as valid whereas in other states such votes are invalid.

What is this?

 

Why isn't there any central federal institution to harmonise all these rules and get rid of these disputes on voting basics.

 

And such Federal elections must set rules to limit any interference of governor of states into a federal election but something like this must be decided by one central body like an election committee. In the end you have plenty of contradictory measures put in place.

(Michigan votes can be counted as valid if they arrive 10 days after the election but must bear the stamp of the election day, Wisconsin the vote must have reached the ballot boxes or by mail at 7pm of the election day... new York Ex offenders can vote 5 years after the last conviction, Texas : any ex offenders of serious crimes can never vote. Washington, voters can have penalties due to the government and can vote, Texas: you can only vote if you paid all your dues.

 

All these State to State voting rules must be streamlined and harmonised.

 

Even other Federal organised states in the world can come up with a common set of rules. the US election of presidents is a federal election and not a US state election, where is the rationale for permitting contradicting voting rules for each state?

 

I think this is the most urgent thing to settle on future elections to eradicate these post election fights and the fights for reducing the electorate for any presidential elections.

[singalion]

7 hours ago, DeMarko said:

DT gonna win as the remaining states with high electoral votes are in favour of DT.

 

They are still counting the mail in ballots. For some of the states they make up 30 - 40 % of the votes this year.

 

2 States already said after counting 60% of these votes, 80% went to Biden, he might catch up over our night.

 

What came as a surprise was that the election supervisor in Pennsylvania sent his counting staff home to get some sleep and to return on the next day 8am to continue voting the balance votes....  Either he was siding for one party or opening a new box for court actions by the incumbent...

 

It remains if the incumbent can put in a challenge to contest the mail in ballots/ absentee votes.

 

Certain states will count votes up to 12 Nov if the date stamp is on election day. But I read somewhere the date stamps at some postal collection centers were left out or not legible.

 

The biggest challenge will be on the signature of absentee votes. it is near to unbelievable for persons always giving the same signature as the sample signature they left with the election bodies in parts 30 or 40 years ago. The election centers have some sample signature of voters on record and the signature on the absentee ballot must match that signature...  This is really a very weird rule...

[singalion]

3 Days after the election day still no near to final results who will be President and hanging on the vote outcome in 5 states. 

 

But it comes clearer who the guy is who seems to really suffer dementia...

 

So far all of his court actions have been brushed off by the judges.

 

But probably , not probably, I m sure someone will claim he managed the biggest win of electors at the electoral college in the history of the US. a big big and great win.

The greatest ever seen...

 

🤣

[InBangkok]

As things stand it’s bye bye to the lying, egomaniac, self serving, greatest-ever expert on everything, Mr. D. Trump.  No doubt he has a future to look forward to. No, not book deals, although some hard up publisher will want to publish his rants and his lies. No, Mr. D. Trump is facing bankruptcy staring right at him and several jail terms re law suits which the Manhattan District Attorney has been preparing for years. Enjoy your retirement D. Trump - that is if enjoyment is possible alongside your vengeful anger and your lust for power now quenched.

[lonelyglobe]

It is unfortunate if he lost but from this election, it shows that he still able to garner a strong support,  if he had try to better manage this pandemic and don't talk so much nonsense,  he would have a very high chance for another 4 years.

 

If Biden win, everyone will open eyes big big and see how he is going to manage this pandemic and the issues with China.