2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks like Drumpf's time is finally up, his numbers have slumped to 87% in NH! #WeldWave all the way!

Screenshot 2020-02-11 at 10.34.14 PM.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nguyen Van Phuoc, spiritofamermaid, Francis York Morgan and 3 others
So what happened with Sanders? I thought they would’ve declared for him by now. Nevermind they just did.
 
I hope it's true that if Sanders gets the nomination, the White House will properly paint him like it did for Barry Goldwater. Where even the base party of the nominee is completely frightened off. There's tons of footage of Bernie in the 80s, out there, talking highly of Nicaragua and etc.

I'm not full American, but I live in America right now (thanks Hurricane Dorian!). I seriously wont want to be here with President Sanders.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Nguyen Van Phuoc, spiritofamermaid, Imnus and 2 others
TrippinKahlua said:
I hope it's true that if Sanders gets the nomination, the White House will properly paint him like it did for Barry Goldwater. Where even the base party of the nominee is completely frightened off. There's tons of footage of Bernie in the 80s, out there, talking highly of Nicaragua and etc.

I'm not full American, but I live in America right now (thanks Hurricane Dorian!). I seriously wont want to be here with President Sanders.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. That crazy old bat is gonna try to give Americans universal healthcare. Thankfully if he wins there are plenty of other western countries you can move to that don't have singlepayer healthcare, like....uh....wait a minute.
 
  • Dumb
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Absolutego, ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛, Your Weird Fetish and 10 others
Ashy the Angel said:
I hear ya. That crazy old bat is gonna try to give Americans universal healthcare. Thankfully if he wins there are plenty of other western countries you can move to that don't have singlepayer healthcare, like....uh....wait a minute.
Click to expand...
nigga completely replacing a system that has worked for our country for years with a completely new system, even with progression, will screw a lot of damn people over out of their healthcare, not only that, but tax increase
 
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Absolutego, Ira the Weatherman, SmileyTimeDayCare and 9 others
Once again, the Dems are drawing the pleasing conclusion instead of the accurate conclusion.

Turnout was just over 2008 levels. There was a competitive race on the GOP side that year. This year there wasn't. New Hampshire is an open primary state. I'd bet virtually no Independents took a GOP ballot. Why on earth would you? Trump is the GOP nominee, period.

Turnout was not nearly so impressive when you factor that point in.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SmileyTimeDayCare and Syaoran Li
thehill.com

Anti-Electoral College activists hope for chaos

Discussion about elector independence has become wrapped up in emotions and opinions about the 2016 presidential election results.
thehill.com thehill.com


Can presidential electors vote for any candidate they choose? Or must they vote for the candidate who won their states’ popular votes? These questions long have remained unresolved, but now the Supreme Court will tackle the issue.

Anti-Electoral College activists want the decision to work in their favor.

If the Supreme Court holds that electors are free agents who can vote their conscience, these activists hope for panic, discontent and outrage. They hope that voters will be scared into giving them what they’ve always wanted: a constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College.

Don’t fall for it. However the court rules, the Electoral College is far more stable than its detractors will acknowledge.

The appeal before the Supreme Court originated from two cases: In Washington, a court held that presidential electors can be required to vote in a certain way or be fined. The 10th Circuit disagreed, holding that electors can vote their conscience.

Presidential electors are elected officials, just as members of Congress are. None of these officials can be booted from office when they break a promise to their constituents. Voters’ recourse is to elect someone new the next time.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the 10th Circuit, is this cause for panic? Will everything change? Will electors begin voting at random, or can we still count on electors to vote in accordance with their own states’ outcomes?

More than 200 years of experience proves the Electoral College can be trusted.

As a matter of history, the “problem” of faithless electors has been mostly theoretical. Of the nearly 24,000 electoral votes cast since 1789, fewer than 30 of these votes have been indisputably cast contrary to voter expectations.

The first of these electors, in 1796, changed his vote to satisfy his own state. He personally preferred John Adams, but the state tally had come out for Thomas Jefferson. Thus, he voted for Jefferson.

Most of the other independent votes were cast for opportunistic reasons. No faithless elector has ever changed the outcome of an election.

The structure of the system creates this stability. Electors typically want to vote as they have been asked to vote. No one is asking a Republican elector to cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton or a Democratic elector to vote for Donald Trump. Electors typically are party loyalists who have been selected because of their hard work during a political campaign. Most would never dream of voting for any other candidate, absent a genuine emergency.

This is why efforts to sway George W. Bush electors in 2000 or Donald Trump electors in 2016 were remarkably unsuccessful.

If electors are so faithful, should we just automate these votes and eliminate the possibility of human wavering? The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, was confronted with this very question, and his answer was an emphatic “No.”

Madison viewed the electors through a dual lens: He was happy that electors had been voting in accordance with state popular vote outcomes, noting approvingly in 1826 that electors were “generally the mere mouths of their constituents.”

On the other hand, he noted, “They may be intentionally left sometimes to their own judgment. … They will be able, when ascertaining, which may not be till a late hour, that the first choice of their constituents is utterly hopeless, to substitute in the electoral vote the name known to be their second choice.”

Today, the discussion about elector independence has become wrapped up in emotions and opinions about the 2016 presidential election results. Don’t forget that other emergency situations could crop up, leaving Americans happy that their electors can act independently and with simple common sense.

What if a winning presidential candidate were to suffer a debilitating stroke after Election Day, but before the meetings of the Electoral College? Should presidential electors vote lock-step for a candidate whose health has been compromised? Now consider that, if this candidate were to die before Congress counted the votes in January, the electoral votes could be deemed invalid and tossed out.

Forcing electors to vote for a dying candidate could potentially put the losing presidential candidate in the White House. Surely most Americans would rather have their electors vote for the vice presidential candidate in such a circumstance.

Or consider another example: Instead of a health crisis, it’s the discovery of a serious crime. An incumbent president and vice president were just re-elected, but now they’ve been caught on video selling state secrets. The charges of treason are certain to stick. Do Americans want their electors bound, based on votes that were cast long before these facts came to light — even if the winning candidates will be immediately impeached, removed from office, and replaced by someone from the opposite political party? Terrorist attacks, assassination attempts, or other emergencies could create similar problems.

Madison valued a fine balance between simple democracy and the possibility of occasional, wise intervention when circumstances call for it. If the Supreme Court affirms the idea of elector independence, then the justices will be simply endorsing Madison’s idea: a system that has worked well for centuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmileyTimeDayCare
Soap Sniffer said:
View attachment 1140689
This is the world you live in now lmao
Click to expand...
Another thing I've never gotten about pronouns is that it's rather unlikely that you'll refer to someone in the third person when talking to them directly. You would always refer them by name directly. Maybe in those rare cases where you are talking with a group of people and you refer to them in the third person when talking about an event or something, but that's rare.

So you can kind of get away with misgendering somebody behind their back, as long as you're not talking to the wrong person who will get offended for no particular reason by your misgendering. The point I'm trying to make here is that it's pointless.

edit was grammar
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Nguyen Van Phuoc, spiritofamermaid, Duncan Hills Coffee and 5 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back