Jump to content

Staggering early vote turnout boosts hopes for Biden in Texas


webfact

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

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

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

 

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, riclag said:

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

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

And they get a all sides rating  lol

 

 

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sucit said:

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

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

 

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

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

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

 

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

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

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

 

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

 

Quote

Republicans have been trying to 'pack courts' for years

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

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

The stock exchange too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Surelynot said:

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

We shall find out shortly'

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

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

 

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

 

32 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

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

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

 

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

 

Politicians should have mandatory retirement at 70.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeffr2 said:

 

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

 

 

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

 

Politicians should have mandatory retirement at 70.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

We shall find out shortly'

 

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

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

 

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

Edited by Hanaguma
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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

 

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

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

Edited by stevenl
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited by herfiehandbag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hanaguma said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

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

 

An interesting read on pensions.

 

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

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

And invented by a damned socialist! ????

220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-R68588,_Otto_von_Bismarck.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...