|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On September 02 2020 08:18 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 08:04 JimmiC wrote:On September 02 2020 07:57 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 02 2020 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 02 2020 06:39 Danglars wrote:
CA libs have already told me that Trump is the worst president ever, but Pence would be worse. Several explanations of the religious angle and bad-but-competent angle are repeated. I had made no progress on the worst-president but not-worse-than-his-vice-president paradox, or rather, that Trump is simultaneously uniquely bad and maybe the country can't endure another 4 years, but he might be followed by someone worse for the country.
But CA is a big liberal bastion, at least on the densely urban parts of the coast, so I can't say the "worse than Trump" is widespread. I do take it as an inevitable event that future Republican presidents will be branded with that epithet to be made to appear radical to some audience. I'm confused to why you think that is a paradox? Trump can be the worst president ever and Pence can worse.
It might be easier for you to think with sports. Jack Nicholson was the best golfer ever, until Tiger Woods (Or Hogan was the best until Jack, whatever you like). So the opposite can also be true. Someone was the worst golfer ever until someone was worse. Had they said Trump was the worst possible president then I could understand what you were getting at, but as you have it written it makes perfect sense. I'm not sure I agree with it, there are many ways Pence would be better but there are some pretty important parts where he would likely be worse. I would say something like Trump is a horrible and unquestionably unqualified president, Pence would be another awful choice. Haha, this is easy to answer. Consider "the worst president ever" versus "the worst president to date". Yes, people have referred to Gretzky or Jordan or whomever as the "best ever" at their respective sports, but these statements are generally understood to be hyperbolic, because they're factually indefensible. If you were to ignore that hyperbole, then having the worst of all time be followed by someone even worse is paradoxical. I believe Danglars' goal in that line of reasoning is to have people admit that claiming Trump to be the worst ever is hyperbolic, and engage in further discussion from that point. Literally, trump cannot be the worst president ever and have Pence be even worse. I mean there are lots of things in the English language that if we took them litterly would be silly. Calling that a paradox is like saying, how can he kick the bucket when hes dead and thinking the person who said it was dumb. Or one of the other millions of things we commonly say that are not litterly accurate. The expression "Kick the bucket" comes from the idea of people hanging themselves by noose, and "Kicking the bucket" from under their own feet. So it literally did refer to kicking the bucket as part of the act of committing suicide. I get what you're getting at, but perhaps not the best example.
Which would work as a phrase if it was used solely to reference suicide, even via different methods. It’s generally used more as a generic ‘x person has died’ though, least in my experience.
|
On September 02 2020 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 08:01 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2020 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 02 2020 07:44 Nevuk wrote:On September 02 2020 07:40 micronesia wrote:
What happens when there is a 269/269 split in the general election? The house votes based on state delegates (each state gets 1 vote), so Trump would almost certainly win. It's also possible to avoid by faithless electors, which are more likely in the current era. oh, did not realize that. I think no matter how you slice it, if there is a tie, our country is essentially in ruins. what if the eventual winner has 4 million more popular votes? I don't think either side will be fine with anything other than a direct victory. The laws/rules we have in place for anything other than a direct victory aren't satisfying. People won't be like "Welp, rules are rules!"
That's how the electoral college works. It's a set of rules. It's not satisfying. Hence all the articles in the mediasphere and all the posts in this thread about how the electoral college needs to go. I think its overwhelmingly likely that people would accept the result, after all the recounts that would take place. There is just a small, outside chance that it would actually break the system.
|
The split electoral college with House deciding is not a major dividing event. It's been in the constitution for 200 years.
The dividing event would be Biden losing, and alleging he actually won due to USPS manipulation and unlawfully rejected ballots, or Trump losing, and alleging he actually won due to mail-in voting fraud and unlawfully rejected ballots. We're currently set up for the scenario.
The other see-saw I've been seeing is both major party candidates saying the election of the other would make existing violence worse.
|
On September 02 2020 08:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 08:04 Mohdoo wrote:On September 02 2020 08:01 IgnE wrote:On September 02 2020 07:46 Mohdoo wrote:On September 02 2020 07:44 Nevuk wrote:On September 02 2020 07:40 micronesia wrote:
What happens when there is a 269/269 split in the general election? The house votes based on state delegates (each state gets 1 vote), so Trump would almost certainly win. It's also possible to avoid by faithless electors, which are more likely in the current era. oh, did not realize that. I think no matter how you slice it, if there is a tie, our country is essentially in ruins. what if the eventual winner has 4 million more popular votes? I don't think either side will be fine with anything other than a direct victory. The laws/rules we have in place for anything other than a direct victory aren't satisfying. People won't be like "Welp, rules are rules!" That's how the electoral college works. It's a set of rules. It's not satisfying.
This is not how humans think. Especially not hyper-divided Americans. Strict adherence to the constitution has been completely rejected by both major parties in recent history. And in the event in an amazingly close race, both major parties have a ton of unsettling theories floating around (illegals voting, voter fraud, USPS manipulation, Russian interference) which would make them pretty feisty.
|
|
|
I personally care about flipping the senate blue than the president. If Senate and house stay blue, then the president will has no power. The only reason Trump gets away with some much bullshit is because we have a compromised senate.
|
On September 02 2020 08:23 Wombat_NornIron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 08:18 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 02 2020 08:04 JimmiC wrote:On September 02 2020 07:57 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 02 2020 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 02 2020 06:39 Danglars wrote:
CA libs have already told me that Trump is the worst president ever, but Pence would be worse. Several explanations of the religious angle and bad-but-competent angle are repeated. I had made no progress on the worst-president but not-worse-than-his-vice-president paradox, or rather, that Trump is simultaneously uniquely bad and maybe the country can't endure another 4 years, but he might be followed by someone worse for the country.
But CA is a big liberal bastion, at least on the densely urban parts of the coast, so I can't say the "worse than Trump" is widespread. I do take it as an inevitable event that future Republican presidents will be branded with that epithet to be made to appear radical to some audience. I'm confused to why you think that is a paradox? Trump can be the worst president ever and Pence can worse.
It might be easier for you to think with sports. Jack Nicholson was the best golfer ever, until Tiger Woods (Or Hogan was the best until Jack, whatever you like). So the opposite can also be true. Someone was the worst golfer ever until someone was worse. Had they said Trump was the worst possible president then I could understand what you were getting at, but as you have it written it makes perfect sense. I'm not sure I agree with it, there are many ways Pence would be better but there are some pretty important parts where he would likely be worse. I would say something like Trump is a horrible and unquestionably unqualified president, Pence would be another awful choice. Haha, this is easy to answer. Consider "the worst president ever" versus "the worst president to date". Yes, people have referred to Gretzky or Jordan or whomever as the "best ever" at their respective sports, but these statements are generally understood to be hyperbolic, because they're factually indefensible. If you were to ignore that hyperbole, then having the worst of all time be followed by someone even worse is paradoxical. I believe Danglars' goal in that line of reasoning is to have people admit that claiming Trump to be the worst ever is hyperbolic, and engage in further discussion from that point. Literally, trump cannot be the worst president ever and have Pence be even worse. I mean there are lots of things in the English language that if we took them litterly would be silly. Calling that a paradox is like saying, how can he kick the bucket when hes dead and thinking the person who said it was dumb. Or one of the other millions of things we commonly say that are not litterly accurate. The expression "Kick the bucket" comes from the idea of people hanging themselves by noose, and "Kicking the bucket" from under their own feet. So it literally did refer to kicking the bucket as part of the act of committing suicide. I get what you're getting at, but perhaps not the best example. Which would work as a phrase if it was used solely to reference suicide, even via different methods. It’s generally used more as a generic ‘x person has died’ though, least in my experience.
This matches my understanding. JimmiC's example strikes me as inaccurate because it paints Danglars as someone who did not correctly understand the phrase in question in the first place, and misunderstood it to mean some literal aimless bucket-kicking.
I, instead, believe that Danglars fully understood the phrase involving bucket-kicking, and instead used its literal interpretation to point to the subtle implication that the person in question was complicit in their own death, and use that as a point of discussion.
At this point, I feel too much like I'm being a Danglars-ally for no fucking reason, so I think I'll drop this discussion here, and hopefully leave the point that assuming bad faith or stupidity in your 'opponents' unnecessarily limits your ability to understand what they're saying.
Also, I'm probably hopelessly naive in my pursuit of friendly discourse.
|
United States24784 Posts
On September 02 2020 08:36 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I personally care about flipping the senate blue than the president. If Senate and house stay blue, then the president will has no power. The only reason Trump gets away with some much bullshit is because we have a compromised senate.
I'm questioning this a bit judging from yesterday's court decision regarding McGahn (referring to https://www.cbsnews.com/news/don-mcgahn-white-house-counsel-congressional-subpoena-appeals-court/ ).
Unless the the entire circuit of the D.C. appeals court takes up the issue, it looks like, short of new legislation, Congress cannot compel executive branch members to testify if the president does not will it. That will of course apply to both parties.
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
@Danglars Both of your scenarios would be complete shitstorms too.
I think you seriously underestimate the shitstorm of a tied electoral college with the House deciding and how that would go.
You may personally care about the Constitution, many of your ostensible brethren it’s purely a performative thing. It’ll be a gigantic mess if we see a tie.
|
While it's been around for 200 years, every time a tie has happened has been super controversial with allegations of corruption flying around.
I think the least controversial/corrupt one was the 1800 one, where Hamilton voted for Jefferson. One of the other examples includes ending reconstruction decades too early.
|
On September 02 2020 08:36 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I personally care about flipping the senate blue than the president. If Senate and house stay blue, then the president will has no power. The only reason Trump gets away with some much bullshit is because we have a compromised senate.
Yeah we could have at least some semblance of balance of power if the Senate did not aid and protect Trump in everything. I just wish both parties could be gone and half the country didn't felate an immoral swindler. There's so much work to be done improving people's lives yet we have all these immovable obstacles and can't get anywhere.
|
On September 02 2020 08:39 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 08:23 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On September 02 2020 08:18 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 02 2020 08:04 JimmiC wrote:On September 02 2020 07:57 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 02 2020 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 02 2020 06:39 Danglars wrote:
CA libs have already told me that Trump is the worst president ever, but Pence would be worse. Several explanations of the religious angle and bad-but-competent angle are repeated. I had made no progress on the worst-president but not-worse-than-his-vice-president paradox, or rather, that Trump is simultaneously uniquely bad and maybe the country can't endure another 4 years, but he might be followed by someone worse for the country.
But CA is a big liberal bastion, at least on the densely urban parts of the coast, so I can't say the "worse than Trump" is widespread. I do take it as an inevitable event that future Republican presidents will be branded with that epithet to be made to appear radical to some audience. I'm confused to why you think that is a paradox? Trump can be the worst president ever and Pence can worse.
It might be easier for you to think with sports. Jack Nicholson was the best golfer ever, until Tiger Woods (Or Hogan was the best until Jack, whatever you like). So the opposite can also be true. Someone was the worst golfer ever until someone was worse. Had they said Trump was the worst possible president then I could understand what you were getting at, but as you have it written it makes perfect sense. I'm not sure I agree with it, there are many ways Pence would be better but there are some pretty important parts where he would likely be worse. I would say something like Trump is a horrible and unquestionably unqualified president, Pence would be another awful choice. Haha, this is easy to answer. Consider "the worst president ever" versus "the worst president to date". Yes, people have referred to Gretzky or Jordan or whomever as the "best ever" at their respective sports, but these statements are generally understood to be hyperbolic, because they're factually indefensible. If you were to ignore that hyperbole, then having the worst of all time be followed by someone even worse is paradoxical. I believe Danglars' goal in that line of reasoning is to have people admit that claiming Trump to be the worst ever is hyperbolic, and engage in further discussion from that point. Literally, trump cannot be the worst president ever and have Pence be even worse. I mean there are lots of things in the English language that if we took them litterly would be silly. Calling that a paradox is like saying, how can he kick the bucket when hes dead and thinking the person who said it was dumb. Or one of the other millions of things we commonly say that are not litterly accurate. The expression "Kick the bucket" comes from the idea of people hanging themselves by noose, and "Kicking the bucket" from under their own feet. So it literally did refer to kicking the bucket as part of the act of committing suicide. I get what you're getting at, but perhaps not the best example. Which would work as a phrase if it was used solely to reference suicide, even via different methods. It’s generally used more as a generic ‘x person has died’ though, least in my experience. This matches my understanding. JimmiC's example strikes me as inaccurate because it paints Danglars as someone who did not correctly understand the phrase in question in the first place, and misunderstood it to mean some literal aimless bucket-kicking. I, instead, believe that Danglars fully understood the phrase involving bucket-kicking, and instead used its literal interpretation to point to the subtle implication that the person in question was complicit in their own death, and use that as a point of discussion. At this point, I feel too much like I'm being a Danglars-ally for no fucking reason, so I think I'll drop this discussion here, and hopefully leave the point that assuming bad faith or stupidity in your 'opponents' unnecessarily limits your ability to understand what they're saying. Also, I'm probably hopelessly naive in my pursuit of friendly discourse.
I mean, you did get what I meant. JimmiC tends towards semantic lines of bickering, but I don't see the usefulness unless multiple people didn't get it and say so.
You don't have to be a Danglars-ally to ask people to listen to what I write and respond with charitable interpretations of what I meant. I think that's doing the thread a service, so take that karma.
|
|
|
On September 02 2020 08:51 Wombat_NornIron wrote:
@Danglars Both of your scenarios would be complete shitstorms too.
I think you seriously underestimate the shitstorm of a tied electoral college with the House deciding and how that would go.
You may personally care about the Constitution, many of your ostensible brethren it’s purely a performative thing. It’ll be a gigantic mess if we see a tie.
I think you seriously misjudge the support for the constitution and the founding principles. Trump's support is buoyed by hatred of the establishment GOP, and really no good alternatives at a national level, but you and others mistake that for actual love of the boorish behavior. The whole constitutional transfer of power is actually quite popular in the right, and if you pay close attention, you'll notice the big culture war battles are when bureaucracies or courts subvert things like the vote.
|
On September 02 2020 07:16 Mohdoo wrote:To make your own, go to https://www.270towin.com/ and set the color palette to "party".
![[image loading]](https://www.270towin.com/map-images/BlDlk)
My Biden v Trump prediction as of now, but we'll see what happens with the debates...
Same as 2016 but add MN and NH to Trump.
|
Joe Kennedy made history today being the first Kennedy to lose a Massachusetts election. I'd like to think it was the Pelosi endorsement that made this possible but I'm pretty sure he did it on his own with gems like:
Not a single patient should be forced to fight off medical bankruptcy in the midst of a global health pandemic without a lawyer by their side.
|
On September 02 2020 11:25 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:My Biden v Trump prediction as of now, but we'll see what happens with the debates... Same as 2016 but add MN and NH to Trump.
I felt PA was the Republican's white whale in 2008, 2012, 2016 ... but I was wrong at the last.
MN feels like the same for this election, however Trump only lost it by 1.5%. It's only a feeling.
|
On September 02 2020 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Joe Kennedy made history today being the first Kennedy to lose a Massachusetts election. I'd like to think it was the Pelosi endorsement that made this possible but I'm pretty sure he did it on his own with gems like: Show nested quote +Not a single patient should be forced to fight off medical bankruptcy in the midst of a global health pandemic without a lawyer by their side.
YESSSSSSSSSS
|
In Pelosi news, she went into a closed-down hair salon for a blowout. Hair salons in San Francisco are closed by local ordinance. They have been closed down since March. She was also not wearing a mask on the trip. She was caught by security cameras. She claimed ignorance of the rules when confronted with her behavior.
Obviously, the owner/renter was pissed that she can just go in and do her business, while she isn't allowed to work. My state, where only the House leader can go to the beauty salon. So much for Democratic leadership on the issue.
Pelosi's visit to hair salon went against coronavirus rules - The House speaker — who has often criticized her Republican colleagues for ignoring coronavirus protocols — was caught on camera at a salon.
|
On September 02 2020 12:17 Danglars wrote:In Pelosi news, she went into a closed-down hair salon for a blowout. Hair salons in San Francisco are closed by local ordinance. They have been closed down since March. She was also not wearing a mask on the trip. She was caught by security cameras. She claimed ignorance of the rules when confronted with her behavior. Obviously, the owner/renter was pissed that she can just go in and do her business, while she isn't allowed to work. My state, where only the House leader can go to the beauty salon. So much for Democratic leadership on the issue. Pelosi's visit to hair salon went against coronavirus rules - The House speaker — who has often criticized her Republican colleagues for ignoring coronavirus protocols — was caught on camera at a salon.
what an incredibly stupid thing to do
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
