Reviewers Recommend
- review by Dirty Rock
Director: Stills by Alan
Starring: Natasha Nice, Lauren Phillips, Abella Danger, Jaclyn Taylor, Kristen Scott, Ember Snow, Dee Williams, Alina Lopez.
All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > The 2020 Elections Thread > The 2020 Elections Thread (page 16)
Page 16 of 17 First < 4 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 Last
AuthorPost
 
All-Star Member

4648 Posts
8/11
Posted - Jul 26 2019 : 1:36PM
^
He was discussing elections in the above post. Obama was twice elected president. However, his coattails proved to be very short. During his 8 years in office, the Democrats lost both houses of Congress and got massacred electorally on the state level. Then, Obama & the wife campaigned for H. Clinton & watched her be defeated. There have been numerous pieces written & discussions on why Obama was unable to transfer his popularity to other candidates. We may be seeing the same thing happen with Trump. He got himself elected, but then saw the GOP take a hit in 2018 elections. I don't know why your brain went to policy. Might be you saw Trump & Obama's names in the same sentence & rage set in.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jul 30 2019 : 3:01PM
Jerry Brown vetoed the CA bill. Now we'll see what New Jersey does.

Click to expand
The CA Senate has passed a new version of that bill. Jerry Brown is now out, let's see what Gavin Newsom does....
Click to expand
[url=520926]
Newsom Has Signed the Bill! [/url]

Remains to be seen what loopholes there are, and whether Goblin or anyone else brings a lawsuit (and I don't even know why I said "whether" because there most certainly will be one) but as of now, he -- and everyone else running, needs to show his returns or they're not on the ballot in CA.


Of course, Goblin may have already written CA off anyway and won't give a shit.


Lord of Lust

az-mo-day-us
14086 Posts
10/01
Posted - Jul 31 2019 : 12:48AM
 
All-Star Member

BOYCOTT JAMES DEEN - BOYCOTT COMPANIES THAT BOOK HIM OR SELL HIS WORK. YES, IT'S THAT BLACK & WHITE.
6939 Posts
8/15
Posted - Jul 31 2019 : 2:56PM


to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Jul 31 2019 : 4:07PM
I saw the first 20 minutes of the debate and then changed the channel. The moderators were asking loaded questions and the debaters were sticking to talking points. Not much depth.

Lord of Lust

az-mo-day-us
14086 Posts
10/01
Posted - Aug 1 2019 : 1:23AM
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 1 2019 : 11:11AM

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 1 2019 : 11:37AM
 
All-Star Member

4648 Posts
8/11
Posted - Aug 1 2019 : 12:41PM


Lord of Lust

az-mo-day-us
14086 Posts
10/01
Posted - Aug 1 2019 : 3:30PM
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 6 2019 : 12:35PM
^^^

 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 7 2019 : 8:44AM
 
Big Double Everything Fan

Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat
9726 Posts
9/01
Posted - Aug 7 2019 : 5:18PM
Moscow Mitch claims he won't be intimidated by McCarthyism, without stating the obvious that McCarthyism was against the USSR and McCarthy was a Republican.

Member

532 Posts
3/14
Posted - Aug 8 2019 : 12:18AM
Without Hillary To Battle, 2020 Was Already Going To Be A Harder Election For Trump, But El Paso's Massacre, IMO, Has Guaranteed That Trump Loses In 2020!


I heard a Hispanic American citizen of El Paso, say in an interview, that the vicious mass murderer who struck that city, last Saturday, had simply fired his weapon at anyone who looked Hispanic, without the shooter caring about whether the people he was targeting for death, were legal American citizens, or not.

So that man, along with other people of Hispanic backgrounds, that I heard, have all pointed out that they feel like they have had targets placed on their backs, and most of them mentioned how the words that the killer wrote on the internet are just like the words that Donald Trump has presented to his crowds of fans.

And on either Wednesday evening's PBS News Hour, or on that evening's "All In With Chris Hayes" show, it was reported that a 51 year old Hispanic American woman, along with her 21 year old daughter, had been so stunned by the El Paso massacre, that they'd been afraid to leave their home, for a few days. But by Wednesday, their fear had turned mostly into anger, and they are going to make sure that they register to vote.

Yup guys, I think that we can be certain that long before Election Day 2020 arrives, countless people, across America, of Hispanic backgrounds, will have taken the action of registering to vote, though they had NEVER voted before. Because those folks will realize that one of the best ways for them to protect themselves, and their families, is to help vote Trump out of office. Removing Donald from the Presidency, will deprive him of the HUGE megaphone that every President has, and the media will give VASTLY LESS ATTENTION to Trump's divisive words & actions, once his ugly carcass is gone from the Oval Office.

Yes, the mass slaughters that took place in 2 American cities, during this past weekend, were certainly awful tragedies for the victims, and their families, in both places, but at least, in the case of El Paso, some good can come out of the horror that the city's people endured, since the sorrow and fear that folks have felt in El Paso, during the days following that mass shooting, are emotions that are now gradually turning into ANGER, among so many of those people. And that anger is bound to lead to a HUGE boost in voter registration among Hispanic Americans, across our country, and help build a huge wave of Anti-Trump voting in 2020.

And BTW, Trump made a statement on Wednesday which will certainly INCREASE ANGER against Donald, among Americans of many different types of ethnic backgrounds, because what Donald Trump said was so DEEPLY INSULTING to the intelligence of about anyone who thinks at the level of a 6th grader, or higher. Mr Trump had been asked a question concerning how the words he has chosen to use have been so potentially inflammatory, which are words that, as we here all know, are just like those that the El Paso mass murderer posted on the internet. And THIS WAS Mr Trump's INCREDIBLY INSULTING response to the question of whether his rhetoric has had a negative impact: "NO, I don't think my rhetoric has at all, I think my rhetoric is a very, uh, it brings people together."

OMG, our Presidential asshole, actually had the balls to look reporters in the eye and make the absurd claim that it "brings people together" for him to make false charges like "Mexico is not sending its best.... these people are rapists and drug dealers, and SOME, I suppose, are probably good people."

I mean guys, what sane & honest American, could possibly agree, while keeping a straight face, with Trump's claim that his rhetoric regarding people trying to cross America's border, has been "bringing people together"? It's stunning that the scumbag, can just try to turn reality on it's head by ACTUALLY PRETENDING that he's some sort of a PEACEMAKER!

But FORTUNATELY folks, aside from a minority of Americans who are Donald's most dedicated, and clueless, followers, few other Americans are swallowing Trump's latest horseshit! And 2020's election will make that point in giant capital letters, when Donald loses the election by more than 100 Electoral votes, as well as by at least 8 to 12 million popular votes.

to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
 
All-Star Member

4648 Posts
8/11
Posted - Aug 8 2019 : 2:14AM
^
Jimmy Carter lost his reelection bid by 440 electoral votes. Contemplate that one for a moment.

Member

532 Posts
3/14
Posted - Aug 8 2019 : 10:16AM
aclayfan, though normally, I'd never describe myself as being conservative, I think that my statement that Trump will lose the 2020 election by at least 100 Electoral votes, was me offering quite a conservative, and careful, estimate, because Trump and his continually ridiculous/dangerous statements, as well as his increasingly obvious lies, are IMO, going to lead to an ever growing coalition of Americans, from many different kinds of backgrounds, who'll not only be in very strong agreement that America's #1 Conman/Scumbag needs to exit the Presidency, but also, these Americans will keep getting more & more highly motivated to get out and vote in 2020, because they just can't wait to express their rejection of a President who seems more disgraceful to them with each passing week.

So aclayfan, while certainly being aware of the huge election loss which was suffered by Jimmy Carter, that you so aptly pointed out, I know that with Trump being a man who is such a gross and disgusting human, compared with Mr Carter, indicates that Donald will probably lose the election by a lot more than the conservative estimate of a 100 Electoral vote margin that I listed. But naturally, aside from the differing personalities of the competing candidates, there are other very important factors at play in determining the results of a Presidential election, with the factor usually topping that list, being the state of the economy, at election time. And Jimmy Carter had a terrible economy, while the one that's likely to exist in November 2020, will probably still be a quite strong one.

But to conclude this on a very encouraging note for us anti-Trumpers, we should bear in mind that in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton's total of popular votes was 6 MILLION FEWER votes than Barack Obama got in the 2012 election, and Clinton's vote total was even 10 MILLION FEWER votes than Mr Obama scored in the 2008 election which made him President.

So folks, I'm quite confident, that since Trump will obviously keep firing up his almost All-White base, to insure that as many of its members, as possible, will turnout to vote in 2020, that means Donald will continue PISSING OFF members of minority groups, like Hispanic Americans and African Americans, by Trump making statements that DEEPLY OFFEND those folks, even as those words PLEASE Trump fanatics. And I honestly believe that the net effect of that will be 2020's Democratic Presidential candidate RECOVERING MUCH, if not, almost ALL of those MILLIONS of Obama votes that Mrs Clinton FAILED to attract. Because as I've said on this smartbuydisc.ru before, NOTHING is as potent in motivating people to get out and vote, as having those people ANGRY at a candidate, and those folks despising the VERY IDEA of having to put up with that person being in office, and seeing that person every day, on their TV screens, for YEARS YET TO COME!

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13923 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 8 2019 : 12:33PM
Hey kids, who wants some numbers?? :)


By Ed Kilgore



Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Aug 9 2019 : 12:30AM
^ From the article...

"Millions of Americans who did not like the president in 2016 now say they do. Over all, his personal favorability rating has increased by about 10 percentage points among registered voters since Election Day 2016"

"voters who have a newly favorable view of Trump may not have voted for him last time around"


Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 9 2019 : 5:36AM
^Scary stuff. Democratic voters need to hear that message and vote in 2020.

Member

532 Posts
3/14
Posted - Aug 9 2019 : 11:58AM
Smiler, in spite of that article, which you provided a link to, claiming that Trump has gained favorability among some Americans since his narrow election victory in 2016, let me make a few points, which IMO, indicate that Trump is in a much weaker political position now, than he was on Election Day 2016.

1. Whoever 2020's Democratic Presidential nominee turns out to be, it's just extremely unlikely that the man or woman who wins that nomination, will be someone who has anything like the number of major strikes against him, or her, which were damaging black marks against Hillary Clinton in 2016. In 2016, CNN reported that surveys taken of the level of the public's approval of Hillary, showed the American people giving Clinton LOWER ratings for personal character traits, such as trustworthiness, than any other Democratic Presidential nominee had ever scored, in the almost 70 years that such surveys had been conducted.

2. Vote totals for the Presidential candidates, as listed in Wikipedia's reports about the 2016, the 2012, and the 2008 Presidential Elections, show that Hillary Clinton's final 2016 total of Popular Votes was 6 MILLION votes LOWER than Barack Obama's 2012 Popular Vote total, and COMPARED to Mr Obama's 2008 Popular Vote total, Mrs Clinton fared EVEN WORSE, as her total number of popular votes in 2016 was 10 MILLION LESS that the number Mr Obama racked up.

3. At the rate that Donald Trump is angering African Americans with such moronic Trump comments as telling a couple of African American Congresswomen to "Go back where they came from", IN SPITE of the fact that they were born and raised, here in the U.S I could see 2020's Democratic Presidential nominee being able to put BACK TOGETHER the former Obama coalition, by RECOVERING MOST, if not quite all, of the millions of Obama votes, that Hillary could not attract.

4. And with the level of outrage that Hispanic Americans have been caused to feel toward Trump because of his racist sounding language regarding people at the border, PLUS Donald having used the same HYPED up INVASION CLAIMS that the El Paso mass murderer expressed on the internet, Trump's Democratic opponent in 2020, has a great chance of EVEN outdoing Barack Obama's high vote totals, since Hispanics eligible to be able to register to vote, will be doing that in HUGE NUMBERS, so that they'll have a way to FIGHT BACK against Trump's racism, by casting votes, to help kick Trump's ass right out of the White House!

5. And BTW, points 3 & 4 will continue to remain valid because the large ad buys already seen from the Trump campaign, which prominently feature Trump's INVASION SCARE TACTIC, make it very clear that Donald Trump's election strategy, rather than involving any attempt to broaden Donald's appeal to the voters, will just be Trump and his people keeping Donald's base FIRED UP & ANGRY, so that the Trumpers are sure to turnout to vote in 2020. But that's a DUMB & SELF DEFEATING Trump strategy, since news about him already angers Trump folks, so there's NO need for MORE scare tactics & racist sounding appeals to motivate them to vote. So the GREATEST EFFECT of such Trump methods will be to ANGER African Americans & Hispanic Americans, and cause THOSE FOLKS, to vote!

6. Lastly, Trump's constant warnings of a CARAVAN INVASION, before the 2018 midterm elections, SERIOUSLY BACKFIRED, having caused many well educated Republicans of the suburbs to TURN AGAINST Trump, and vote for Democratic candidates. That happened, even though Donald had constantly said, in the months leading up to the voting, that the SECURITY of America DEPENDED on America's voters sending MORE Republicans to Congress who'd BACK Trump on his policies, ESPECIALLY his border policy. But what RESULT did such FEAR BASED appeals bring for Republicans? THAT RESULT was a 41 SEAT GAIN for the Democrats, giving them back control of the House, with the OVERALL TOTAL winning vote margin for the Democrat candidates having been 9 MILLION more votes than Republican candidates got. That was the BIGGEST overall winning vote margin in a midterm election, in U.S. history! Yup folks, in 2018, the way that Mr Trump used his Illegal Immigration/Border Invasion issue to TRY to SCARE Americans, only succeeded at causing Trump and his Republicans, to LOSE many moderate GOP supporters in the suburbs, enabling the Democrats to take back control of the House, while winning some House seats which had been firmly in Republican hands for decades. So, as a Democrat, I SURE hope Trump keeps loudly beating the BORDER INVASION drum, throughout 2020's election campaign!

And since CNN recently reported, that the Trump campaign has already paid for 2,000 ads, to be put on Facebook, which each prominently feature the word INVASION, then it sure looks like Mr Trump is bound & determined, to stick with his LOSING GAME PLAN! What a genuine DUMBASS that Donald J Trump IS!!
(Anyhow, we should all just thank goodness, that Trump keeps insisting on staying with such a stupid strategy!)

P.S.- Had forgotten to offer some comments about the FOLLOWING QUOTE, that Simple Simon posted, which is from that article written by Ed Kilgore:-------
------"Millions of Americans who did not like the president in 2016 now say they do." "Overall, his personal favorability rating has increased by about 10 percentage points among registered voters since Election Day 2016"


1. Don't know what Kilgore's source of information could be for the part of his statement which claims that Trump's "personal favorability rating has increased by about 10 percentage points among registered voters since Election Day 2016". Because none of the well known, and widely respected, polling organizations that I'm familiar with, has found results that point to Donald Trump's level of personal favorability, as judged by registered voters, having improved since Election Day 2016, in any amount approaching as much as a 10% improvement. It's even very difficult to find any reputable polls, such as the Gallup Poll, (America's oldest, and generally, most respected poll) which indicate that Trump's favorability among registered voters has improved by even 3 to 5%, since 2016.
So the 10% claim is just the sort of Right wing, Trump approved, made up BULLSHIT, that one would hear from professional liars like Tucker Carlson & Hannity!

2. Also, even if that claim of a 10% improvement in Trump's favorability HAD COME from a credible source, the polling or research that would have been done in order to have determined that level of improvement, OBVIOUSLY would have been DONE BEFORE the El Paso Massacre of 6 days ago, and the DISASTROUS Trump behavior that America has seen Donald exhibiting, during the 6 days following that massacre. Just 1 GLARING example of such UN-Presidential Trump behavior in the face of such tragedy, and mourning by the loved ones of murder victims, is the UNSEEMLY spectacle that Trump made of himself during his visit to shooting victims in an El Paso hospital. Today, I've watched 3 times, video that was shot of Trump's hospital visit. In the video, there stands Trump, front and center, boasting to victims suffering from serious bullet wounds, that when he, Donald Trump, had been in El Paso, 3 months ago, he had gotten a much bigger crowd in El Paso, than Beto O'Rourke had gotten at an El Paso event, with Trump describing O'Rourke's rally as "Beto had like 400 people in a parking lot."

Wow, there they were, 8 unfortunate shooting victims, a few in very serious condition, and they get to hear a President boosting his own ego, by bragging about his crowd size. And Trump EVEN LIED about the SIZE of Beto O'Rourke's crowd, because respected journalist, and author, John Heilemann, noted that he had been at that O'Rourke appearance, and as opposed to Trump's claim of only about 400 people having been at the event, Mr Heilemann said about 10 THOUSAND people were there.

But the most DAMNING description of Trump's supposed comforting, and showing of moral support, for victims of last weekend's mass shootings, as seen and heard in that depressing video of Donald's El Paso hospital visit, was the commentary about that video which was given by branding and marketing expert, Donnie Deutsch, who had known and associated with Donald Trump, for more than 30 years. Mr Deutsch was a guest on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", this morning, and immediately after that video was shown of Donald Trump boasting to shooting victims about the size of his rally crowds, Mr Deutsch said this about his former friend, Trump: "That's a sociopath, that's a sociopath, who literally, he's in a hospital, and let's point it out, that the 8 patients that are in there, did not want to see him. That is sociopathic behavior, to go into a hospital after a mass shooting, where people are fighting for their lives, and to be talking about your rallies, and your competitors. That is a human being with NO CAPACITY TO FEEL!"

Yes, I've long noticed that Trump exhibits a total lack of having any capacity to feel genuine empathy for other human beings. But sadly, he DOES sometimes exhibit a genuine CAPACITY for being able to behave as a true RACIST, as he obviously did, back in the 1970s, when the government caught him and his father having their Trump apartment complex managers, falsely claim to African American couples, that no apartment vacancies existed in Trump owned properties, though white couples the government was sending to inquire about apartments, were being shown a whole range of apartments, from which they could choose.


(Was UPDATED on Sunday August 11th)


Edited by - Zoiper2009 on 8/9/2019 2:17:56 PM

Edited by - Zoiper2009 on 8/9/2019 4:14:11 PM

Edited by - Zoiper2009 on 8/9/2019 4:33:16 PM

Edited by - Zoiper2009 on 8/11/2019 11:00:31 AM

 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 13 2019 : 12:47PM
I have a question: On your election ballot, do you actually vote for the President?

Member

52 Posts
8/18
Posted - Aug 13 2019 : 1:00PM
^ Yes. One votes for the President and Vice President, the candidate's running mate, together, with one vote. However, it's not a direct vote for the president. I'm assuming you're aware of our . And the quagmire we're currently in because of it. I don't remember the exact particulars, so I may have the following slightly wrong. I remember hearing several times over the years that originally, the Founding Fathers wanted Congress to vote for the president. They didn't trust the unwashed masses. Shows how prescient the Fathers were...
 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 13 2019 : 2:04PM
^ I did a little research and you are correct. Electors decided who the President will be.

To be honest, and I believe that I've mentioned this before. If the States are going to have a 2 party system, the best system to have is what we have in Canada, known as "First Past The Post" or the most votes win.

You would get rid of the Electoral College once and for all.

Here in Canada, we don't vote for the Premier (Provincial) nor the Prime Minister (Federal), unless he or she is a candidate in your home riding.

We have ridings, similar to your districts.

For example,

In Riding 1, there are 3 candidates.

Candidate A represents the Liberal Party
Candidate B represents the Progressive Conservative Party
Candidate C represents the New Democratic Party

On election day you would go the polling station and vote for one of three candidates, on an electoral form and using a pencil.

At the close of voting, usually 9 pm in the area, the votes would be tallied, electronically and then, hand-counted for verification, a winner of that riding would be declared.

So, in our example of Riding 1, candidate A wins. That would mean a win for the Liberal Party. So, count 1 for the Liberals and so forth.

Now, I have never ever seen an election go down to last riding. Not even once. As they say, if a party can win Canada's largest city, Toronto, that party will win the election. Usually after all the ridings in Ontario are in, the remaining 4 Provinces and the 3 Territories - Manitoba, Saskatchewen, Alberta, BC, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are usually formalities. Please understand that I am not diminishing the importance of the 4 Provinces and 3 Territories. I'm just stating a fact.

Now, keep in mind, that the leaders of these parties also have their own ridings. Trudeau in Quebec, Scheer in Alberta and Singh in BC. I'm just using the 3 major parties for this example. Sorry Elizabeth May and the Green Party, who are also in BC.

We have the "First Past The Post" system in Canada or as mentioned above, the most votes, wins.

If you are interested in how elections are conducted in Canada, we have a federal election this October to determine if Trudeau remains our PM or someone else takes over.

Go Justin!

Another thing of interest is that there are no set terms for being PM or Premier. Your country has a limit of 2 terms per President.

Edited by - grover on 8/13/2019 2:20:28 PM


Member

52 Posts
8/18
Posted - Aug 13 2019 : 3:02PM
^ Electors do decide who gets that state's votes. Tho, they almost always vote for the candidate who got the most votes in that state. Maine and Nebraska have a "split" system. Easier to let you read it , than for me to try to repeat it. In Oregon, a bill was recently passed by their House of Representatives, to assign all of Oregon's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes nationally. More info . It's awaiting the governor's approval.

FYI, the 2-term limit was enacted after Franklin D. Roosevelt died. Prior to FDR, it was an unwritten custom for a president to step down after his second term. I would have to research it, as to FDR's reasoning for staying on. Tho I strongly suspect he thought the country would be better served to not change things too much with WWII on the horizon for us.

to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info
 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 13 2019 : 4:49PM
^ Thanks for the links.

I did read that some States have said that, about all their electoral votes, going to the candidate that receives the most votes.


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Aug 13 2019 : 5:35PM
Isn't the issue with having a pure 'first past the post' system in America that sitting governments would purely focus on the most populated regions, and smaller regions/states would be disregarded?
 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 13 2019 : 6:29PM
^ Based on what I said earlier, it is a definite possibility. However, when you have a 2 party system like the States, every vote carries an equal value. One vote means one vote. It's a popularity contest.

When you have proportional representation, not every vote carries the same value from State to State because that one vote represents a proportion of the population of the district or State.

That is why you see States like California having such a huge electoral vote number and if I'm not mistaken, it's 53 or something like that whereas States like Vermont has an electoral value of 3 or something like that.

The value is based on the population.

The problem I have is that people move from State to State, whether it is for employment reasons or they just prefer a rural life, etc. Whatever, the case may be, there will be a fluctuation of people in and out of every State.

How are you going to capture that properly? Does the electoral number go up in Vermont if a significant number people move from California to Vermont? Not sure. What is the metrics that changes that electoral number - i.e. how many people does it take to change Vermont's electoral number from 3 to 4? And vice versa?

It's too unpredictable. And like I said, how is that information captured properly? What's even more messy if it happens during an election year, like next year for the States.

I'm use to "First Past The Post" here in Canada and I understand it. One vote for candidate A means one vote for candidate A. End of story.


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Aug 13 2019 : 6:57PM
^ But I believe Canada has a seat-based parliament to decide the PM, not a pure presidential popular vote.

The issue with these types of systems is that they basically require party's to focus on marginal seats/states and disregard safe ones. (Trump won the election by tailoring his campaign to the marginal states, while Clinton lost because she focused on the popular vote.)

In Australia, the issue is that elections are decided not just in marginal seats, but really only swinging voters in marginal seats. And party's tailor their message to that 0.04%* of voters.

*yes, I made that figure up.

 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 13 2019 : 10:22PM
^ Let's start again.

Canada is made up of 338 ridings, from coast to coast to coast. That means in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, there 338 seats.

In each riding, there are at least 3 candidates. One each from the 3 major parties - the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats. Having said that, some ridings have more. A lot more. Other parties include the Green Party, the Bloc Quebecois (only in Quebec) and the newest party, the People's Party of Canada. Plus, other fringe parties such as the Communist Party of Canada, etc, etc.

The leaders of these parties have their own ridings. Trudeau's riding is in Quebec, Scheer's riding is in Alberta and Singh's riding is in BC. I'm going to include Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party. Her home riding is also in BC.

The Bloc Quebecois leader, whose name escapes me right now. Obviously, his riding is somewhere in Quebec.

When I go and vote (which will be this October), typically I would choose the party. So, if grover is the Liberal candidate for my riding and if grover gets the most votes (First Past The Post), grover would become my Member of Parliament or MP. So, for my riding, my MP is grover and he represents the Liberal Party. Count 1 seat for the Liberals. And so forth for next riding.

Elections in Canada are usually over when all the ridings in Toronto are tallied. Since Toronto is Canada's largest city, which ever party wins Toronto, will win the election.

So, going to the end usually never occurs. A Prime Minister will be named usually after all the ridings in Toronto are tallied. I'm not disrespecting the provinces that are west of Ontario and the Territories but what I'm stating is fact.

Win Toronto and you will win the election.

You may ask: How does Justin Trudeau become Prime Minister if he's only a candidate during the election?

He becomes the Prime Minister because the Liberal Party won the most ridings or seats and he is their leader.

Every 4 years, an election must take place whether it be Provincially or Federally.

However, that may not be the only time that there is an election.

Dissolution of Parliament:

The House of Commons, but not the Senate, can be dissolved at any time by the Queen of Canada (Queen Elizabeth the Second - your Queen, our Queen) or by Governor General, conventionally on the advice of the Prime Minister. In the case of a constitutional crisis, the Crown may act on its own with no advice from another body of the Parliament. If the government is refused confidence or supply, the Prime Minister must either resign and permit another member of the House of Commons to form a government (what happened in the UK recently), or else advise the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. Also, the House of Commons automatically dissolves after five years, although no House of Commons has yet survived that long.

The provincial legislatures may also be dissolved at any time for the same reasons, by the Lieutenant Governor on the advice of the Premier. British Columbia, Ontario, Québec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories have established fixed election dates.

Australia's system and Canada's system should not differ by much. After all, both countries were British colonies at one point of their history and both countries are still part of the Commonwealth.

Ontario's flag still has the Union Jack in its upper left hand corner.

Edited by - grover on 8/13/2019 10:43:38 PM


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Aug 14 2019 : 4:49AM
^ So 'first past the post' only applies to the individual seats. The PM is still appointed on a proportional system. Aren't you saying the US should change from the state-based Electoral College to a national popular vote?

Following on from this, H. Clinton and the rest of the world saying Clinton got 3M more votes, so if it was a popular vote Trump would've lost cannot really state that, for two main reasons:

i) Trump focused his campaign to swinging voters in marginal seats. If it was a popular vote, he would've run a completely different campaign.

ii) How many Republican voters (eg. in California) didn't vote because they knew their vote would be meaningless?


Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 14 2019 : 9:51AM
Democrats also do not turn out in California because their vote won't make any difference.

I'm also in a pre-determined Dem state, so I can vote for Ralph Nader and not throw anything. But had it been a non-Electoral-College deal, purely popular vote, I wouldn't have. It's not solely Republicans who make a different calculation because of the Electoral College.


Member

52 Posts
8/18
Posted - Aug 14 2019 : 10:01AM
I would have to politely disagree.
i) Yes, a normal politician would have run a completely different campaign. Trump is not normal. The rude, ignorant, arrogant things he said during the 2016 campaign bear this out. As well as all of the crazy shit afterwards. Sadly, there's a hefty percentage of people in this country who think that it's their God-given right to be as ignorant and arrogant as they want. So they identify with Trump. Disturbingly, Fox "News" is the most-watched news outlet in America. I don't have the exact numbers, but the percentage of Americans who watch Fox is roughly the same number as Trump's approval rating. 'Nuff said.

ii) You make a valid point. However, that rapidly becomes a zero-sum discussion. It can easily be flipped to say "How many Democrat voters in the south, i.e., Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, didn't vote because they knew their vote would be meaningless." When we vote for the president, there are a LOT of other federal and state candidates on the ballot. Heck, Devin Nunes, one of the largest pimples on the ass of society, is from California (he's a Republican U.S. congressman). Point being, people don't vote JUST for president. They vote for a lot of other offices at the same time. I find it hard to believe that as long as they are at the polling place, they don't vote for their preferred presidential candidate just because they strongly suspect that their candidate will not carry the state.


Member

52 Posts
8/18
Posted - Aug 14 2019 : 10:26AM
"every vote carries an equal value". Not quite, due to the To summarize, every state gets 2 electoral votes, plus additional votes based upon the how many members of the House of Representatives that state has. Which is based upon population. Which means that states with very small populations, such as Wyoming and Montana, and much of the South, get an outsized proportion of votes. Wyoming has 577,737 people. California has 39,560,000. Just counting the 2 electoral votes that each state gets, just for being a state, that means that Wyoming gets 1 vote for every 288,868 citizens, while California gets 2 votes for every 1,978,000 citizens.

The number of members of the House of Representatives, and thus the number of electoral votes based upon population, is decided by each state's population. Which is determined by a census taken every 10 years. As to what happens when a census year and an election year occur in the same year, I honestly don't know if the census affects the Electoral College numbers before or after the election. However, this scenario happens 5 times every century, without any problems. I'm sure that there's some rules written somewhere that govern this.

For what it's worth, this system was devised back in the colonial days. Southern colonies, which had a far lower population, were afraid of being out-numbered by the far more populated northern colonies. They threatened to not join the newly declared country because of this. Thus, the Founding Fathers devised the compromise solution that we have nowadays.

 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 14 2019 : 10:49AM
You have the first part of your statement correct. Most votes, wins. That is what "First Past The Post" means. Like I've mentioned, it's a popularity contest.

At this point, during the election, there is no PM. Parliament has been dissolved which essentially means that there is no Government.

For example,

Canada has 338 seats in the House of Commons in Ottawa. That means that from coast to coast to coast, Canada is divided into 338 ridings.

Each party has a leader. Justin Trudeau is the Liberal Party leader (and our current PM! Yay!), Andrew Scheer is the PC Party leader, Jagmeet Singh is the NDP leader, Elizabeth May is the Green Part leader and so forth.

Assuming that it's a tight race and the election goes right until the end.Therefore, a riding in BC will determine which party will form the next Government.

Also, assume that the Liberals win a majority (Yay!) for argument sake because for this discussion, it makes it easier to digest. A majority win means that if you add up the seats won by the PCs, the NDPs, the Greens, etc., that total does not exceed the number of the seats won by the Liberals.

Once all the votes in each riding have verified and signed off, the Liberal Party are now declared the winning party. The Governor-General (he or she represents the Queen) signs off and now, the Liberal Party can form the next Government.

Because Justin Trudeau is the leader of the Liberal Party, the winning party, he is now the Prime Minister. There is no proportional anything in Canada's election process whatsoever.

And yes, that is exactly what I saying. The States have a 2 party system, the Dems and the Repugs. It makes more sense for the States to have a popular vote rather than the Electoral College.



Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Aug 14 2019 : 7:11PM

I meant the PM is decided on which party wins the greater proportion of seats, not the total number of votes. So it is similar to the American Electoral College.


Thank you for politely disagreeing.

So you you're saying if the last election was actually a popular vote the total number of popular votes would've been the same because with my two points:

i) Trump would've run the exact same 'Make America Great Again' campaign?

ii) There were not a significant number of Republicans who didn't vote because they were in safe Democrat states, and even if there were, there would have been an equivalent number of Democrat voters who didn't vote because they were in safe Republican states?

I disagree on the first point. I have to admit, I don't know about the second.

Edited by - Simple Simon on 8/14/2019 7:12:49 PM


Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 14 2019 : 7:29PM

I've been seeing more and more tweets like this. They disguise them like they are calls to treat each other with more kindness, but make no mistake - they are threats. "You better stop saying his supporters are racists or we're voting for him again!" HA! Fuck that. This is a lie. Anyone who supports Trump now will support Trump in November 2020. We aren't going to win over their pathetic asses by saying they're not racists, so we shouldn't pander to them.

The focus of the Democratic party should not be to try to recruit dissatisfied Trump voters. If they're unhappy with Trump, they won't vote for him. If they're happy with him, they will. If someone is sitting on the fence, calling Trump supporters "racists" won't dissuade them because they not Trump supporters to begin with. The Democratic strategy is to register more people to vote, then convince them why they should. This is a strategy that works well for the Democrats because as a whole, younger people tend to be a lot less likely to vote than their elders, and young people are far more left-leaning that those over 45 years old. It worked well in 2018 and will work well in 2020.

 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28339 Posts
3/02
Posted - Aug 14 2019 : 7:37PM
The focus of the Democratic party should be to try to appeal to all Americans, including those who voted for Trump. You aren't going to appeal to them by insulting them, or ignoring the reasons they voted for Trump in the first place.
 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 14 2019 : 7:55PM
It is definitely not like the US Electoral College. I'm sorry. I'm not going to explain myself again.

If you have the opportunity to watch our election this coming October, please do so.

Edited by - grover on 8/14/2019 7:57:20 PM


Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 14 2019 : 8:43PM
^^The Democrats can't appeal to all Americans because there are too many positions that Democrats will not support but Trump supporters love. Want to overturn Roe vs. Wade? Rubbish. Want to lower taxes even more for the highest income earners in the country? Bullshit. Prayer and religion in public schools? No. Want to separate children from their parents in an attempt to curb illegal immigration? That's fucking ghastly. Think it's ok to insult our allies while sucking up to Putin and KJU? Who are these fucking idiots?

Trump supporters voted for a President who likes to say it like it is, so let me do something they approve of. They are fucking idiots and racists - not a whole lot more to say than that. If they still support Trump after all the disgusting crap that's occurred since January 2017, they are a lost cause. You're well informed, so you know...I don't need to tell you how sick our President is. Those people who still support him after all of this will NEVER vote for a Democrat, so Democratic candidates shouldn't play their stupid game. If a Democratic candidate holds a position that a Trump supporter likes, GREAT! But if they don't, who cares? Those people aren't voting for a Democrat.

I don't suggest any Democratic candidate for office insult Trump supporters out loud - that's bad politics. But I'm sure many (all?) of them think the same way that Hillary did ("basket of deplorables"). Hillary said this in 2016, and after all the shit that Trump has done with the support of his idiot army, it's even clearer now, they are very sick people. But I think all of the candidates, with the exception of maybe Biden, are savvy enough to hold back the insults, and keep that part under wraps.

Once in office, then yes, if a Democrat wins, they should govern for the entire country, not just for Democrats.


Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 12:12AM

Do you think the Mooch is sincere about his turning on Trump, or do you think this is a manufactured beef, a distraction they planned together to take attention away from something else? Honestly, I don't even know what to think anymore.

 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 12:51AM
^ Mack, that is how the FM45 Presidency has twisted everything into a sense of uncertainty for the American people. You are absolutely correct! No one knows what to think anymore.

Morals? Ethics? What are they in this administration?

Self-doubt? Uncertainty? Muddled thinking? That is exactly what FM45 wants! Confusion? Disillusion? Misinformation? Absolutely!

These are very, very dangerous times in America! And don't forget, the World does look to the States for guidance!

The only advice I can give the American voting public that really care about the country is to stay focus and clear-headed.

So, my message to America is that if you really care about the state of your country and the World that you live in, please do not give FM45 a second term!

Go luck! I'll be watching! The World will be watching!

 
All-Star Member

4648 Posts
8/11
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 2:00AM
^^
I'll pass on choices a & b. I'll take choice c. He knows what to say if he wants to be a regular guest on CNN.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1636 Posts
5/08
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 5:59AM
^^Thanks Grover - thatís uplifting!

^Yup, Iíll take c too. Mooch is loving the attention of being on tv. Regardless of his real intentions, itís good to have him as a mouthpiece against his old boss.


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 7:08AM
^

White house statement:ďThis is all self-serving on his part and the media plays right into it. Itís embarrassing to watch.Ē


 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28999 Posts
11/04
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 9:18AM
^^ Like aclayfan has mentioned, we, Canadians, cannot influence your election and I'm certain that we won't. It is not in Canada's best interest to do so. After all, the States is Canada's largest trading partner and vice versa. But I will not and cannot vouch for other countries, say Russia and even, North Korea.

Stay focus, y'all!


Member

52 Posts
8/18
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 9:53AM
Simon - As to the Orange One running the same campaign regardless, I still say he would. For several reasons:

One, his supporters say that "he tells it like it is" even though he lied and made stuff up all throughout the campaign. He's still doing it now that he's in office. And his supporters are still supporting him. For him, it's not about doing good for the country. It's about having a bunch of people telling him how wonderful he is. As long as he's getting enough of that positive feedback, he's always going to do what gives it to him. As I mentioned in a previous post, there's a sad number of Americans who think that it's their God-given right to be rude, ignorant, and clueless. And the Orange One learned early on that he could say rude, ignorant, and clueless crap and those people would feel vindicated and support him.

Two, it's well known that the Orange One is going to do whatever he feels like, regardless of the advice of the people he's hired to give him advice. Remember, he's a "stable genius". He knows everything. He would never listen to advice to tone down the hate and lies.

Three, look at his current rallies. 'Nuff said.

As to Republicans in Democrat states not voting for a Republican because it won't mean anything, and vice-versa, as you say, there's no way to quantify it. That's more impossible than one of those "Guess how many jelly beans are in the jar and win a prize" contests! In fact, I've voted for candidates fully knowing that they'll lose. It's my choice, my vote. Also, we occasionally have tied votes that are literally decided by a coin toss (this is mostly for small, local offices). So my vote could change things.

Thanks for the polite discussion! It's been fun.


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 10:41AM
^ I found this interesting article, written just after the election, that addressed both Trump's campaigning and Republicans in Democrat states.

"It means Trump didn't campaign or advertise in California or Massachusetts or Washington...They knew it would be wasted effort"

"they tailored their messages specifically to voters in key states, which happen to be disproportionately Midwestern and on the East Coast. It meant Trump had little incentive to appeal to Western voters — outside Nevada, at least. And he pursued a very specific strategy that appealed to the key Rust Belt states"

"What we do know, though, is that less-competitive states tend to have lower turnout ... California ranks 44th in turnout. Only an estimated 53 percent of its eligible voters have had their ballots counted "


Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 11:33AM
Again, that's pure speculation.

The dems don't bother with a number of states, as well. They don't hit the ground in Mississippi or Kansas, or wherever.


Senior Member

2970 Posts
2/15
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 1:08PM
^ Well the campaigning directives aren't speculation. (Eg. MAGA was tailored to swinging/reluctant voters in rust belt states.)

Anf from the article
"An electoral-college election involves making explicit appeals to and advertising in around 10 or 12 out of the 50 states. It means Trump didn't campaign or advertise in California or Massachusetts or Washington state and that Clinton didn't campaign in Oklahoma or even Texas (despite polling within single digits there). They knew it would be wasted effort to try to turn a 30-point loss in those states into a 22-point loss, or a 14-point loss into an eight-point loss."


Senior Member

"In Defense of Rape and Incest" by Steve King
6995 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 15 2019 : 2:09PM
I meant that it was speculation that tGrump would win a popular election because he would campaign in states like California. That ignores the fact that his opponent would also campaign in hitherto neglected states.
Page 16 of 17 First < 4 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 Last



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone