2020 US Presidential Election

#1,142
aot said:
He's bad, but Andrew Johnson was also super shitty.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find, unless you are 150 years old, that Andrew Johnson wasn't a president in your lifetime;)
Tanni said:
Interesting question. It would be up to the Americans to advise from a domestic point of view, but from an international standpoint GWB Jr was a disaster for the UK, working alongside our second worst PM Blair (the top honour still has to go to Ms Thatcher, of course).

Best president -- I dunno, Obama probably. Although I don't like him much either.
Click to expand...
So who do you put as the best prime minster in your lifetime?

As for Thatcher, well she was a great statesman (read woman), but some of her domestic policies leave a lot to be desired. For example, transport systems, eg railways, should be kept under government control not privatised.

I would put May as probably the worst, but there are so many to choose from :(
Carlos1 said:
@all to gain
No one will because the truth is staring at them and they refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit their narrative.
Click to expand...
I hate it when people get stuck in narratives as I'm just interested in the truth. This is probably one of the reasons I have never voted.

Whether your point on liberal cities is true or not I don't know as I'm not from the US and don't follow things that closely. Maybe you could outline in more detail why you think it is the case?
FGG said:
In my lifetime, I admire Jimmy Carter the most as a person though I was too young to remember him during his presidency. He supported civil rights and environmentalism and continues to be a humanitarian in his retirement. He's particularly focused on poverty and medical issues and because of his foundation, they will eradicate the Guinea Worm which I find pretty inspiring.

Trump is the worst. No contest.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough I've just watched an interview with Carter when he was 93. He came across as a very likeable character. But then I went to Wiki to read more about him, and it puts him down as not being a likeable character.
 
#1,143
I met Jimmy Carter. He came to my school in New Hampshire just after becoming a candidate. New Hampshire is the first primary state. I lived off campus my senior year and could only get five dollars of gas for my car at one filling, because of the gas crisis. Met George Bush senior on campus as well, but this was before he ran for president. I had the opportunity to meet many state senators, US senators and Governors in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Went to school with some of the Kennedy kids and was able to visit their compound on Cape Cod.
 
#1,144
Greg Sacramento said:
I met Jimmy Carter. He came to my school in New Hampshire just after becoming a candidate. New Hampshire is the first primary state. I lived off campus my senior year and could only get five dollars of gas for my car at one filling, because of the gas crisis. Met George Bush senior on campus as well, but this was before he ran for president. I had the opportunity to meet many state senators, US senators and Governors in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Went to school with some of the Kennedy kids and was able to visit their compound on Cape Cod.
Click to expand...
So the question is: How come? Especially in relation to the senators and going to school with some of the Kennedy kids?
 
#1,145
@all to gain
My parents had friends in Massachusetts and I was able to go schools of choice.
In New Hampshire, I was editor of one of the school's two newspapers. I did interviews and left the other stuff to associate and assistant editors because of my study load in biology, finance and economics. I interviewed Jimmy Carter when he came to campus.
Now, I never meet or talk to anyone.
Even the doctors that I worked under here in California, don't bother with me.
I really just have my wife.
I never leave my house, unless for a doctor's appointment.
I live with serious pain - mouth, vein and artery disease. Tinnitus and pulsatile.
It's very difficult for me to to survive.
I will be leaving this world soon, so I just spend my time talking to others online.
 
#1,146
Greg Sacramento said:
@all to gain
My parents had friends in Massachusetts and I was able to go schools of choice.
In New Hampshire, I was editor of one of the school's two newspapers. I did interviews and left the other stuff to associate and assistant editors because of my study load in biology, finance and economics. I interviewed Jimmy Carter when he came to campus.
Now, I never meet or talk to anyone.
Even the doctors that I worked under here in California, don't bother with me.
I really just have just my wife.
I never leave my house, unless for a doctor's appointment.
I live with serious pain - mouth, vein and artery disease. Tinnitus and pulsatile.
It's very difficult for me to to survive.
I will be leaving this world soon, so I just spend my time talking to others online.
Click to expand...
Greg, I'm so sorry that you are in so much pain and that your life has reached this point.

You are one of the good guys. People can be so mean and selfish sometimes.

Hang on in there Greg and keep communicating with us here. I always enjoy your posts.

All the best.
 
#1,147
image.jpeg


Left wing = Extra Crispy?

Right wing = Original Recipe?
 
#1,148
FGG said:
Sexual orientation is beyond people's control, too.

Mormons tried to preach for years (they might still, I haven't followed up) that "homosexuality itself was not wrong but "homosexual behavior was" and used to encourage gay members just to marry straight members and keep their gay thoughts to themselves.

I realize you were giving a "devil's advocate" view and not necessarily your own but I have heard people try to give logical arguments to what really boils down to "I don't want to see that and I don't want my kids to either" which is actually homophobia whether they realize it or not.
Click to expand...
The Bible says lots of horrible things, condemning homosexuality is just one of them :mad:
It's hard to believe this day and age that people think homosexuality is a choice.
all to gain said:
It's not the same.

They are unable to have children due to reasons beyond their control, and, maybe more importantly, whether they marry or not will not affect the social fabric of society in a big way.

I'm only giving examples to answer your original question. I'm not saying that these are my own views, but they are valid reasons that some people will bring up. I really don't care myself one way or the other what other people do. I'm looking at it more from how other people may view it.

It is all academic now anyway. Same sex marriage exists and is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Who knows, it may end up making society stronger?
Click to expand...
I understand you have stated these are not your views but that they are valid reasons that some people will bring up, in my view it all boils down to them being homophobic no matter what spin they put on it.
 
#1,150
Carlos1 said:
@all to gain
No one will because the truth is staring at them and they refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit their narrative.
Click to expand...
I think they don't want to because it's guaranteed to cause a major fight about democratic cities vrs republican cities in the middle of a thread about the presidential election.

.Also, that they doubt that any data would actually sway you, cause there is clearly a lot of emotion behind the way you introduced it. You didn't mention how liberal cities are destroying the country either, so it's hard to really debate against it other than to say similarly vague things like "Cities, which tend to be liberal, are the economic engines of this country, so how are they destroying it?"

I know I personally don't want to debate it, because it seems like every time I've tried to in the past with people who have made similar opening statements, any data or studies I brought up was disregarded, as well as their arguments Being based on largely bad faith and strawman. Not to say that it would this time, but the prize of such an argument, getting you to change your mind, isn't really something I need.

What I can say is thank you for serving this country and protecting it. It's clear that you love it very much to have served it, and I hope it's treating you well. We tend to ignore our soldiers after they've served, and that's a terrible shame.
 
#1,151
There is a dire need for 3rd parties in the US. Ideology is multifaceted, far more than is expressed through the existing left/right paradigm. In lieu of 3rd parties one is asked to accept a basket of policies, some you support and some you don't, based on which issues you feel are most important. Since left and right have become increasingly polarized it's hard for someone closer to the center to figure out which side to support. But this explains why Biden won the primaries and not someone like Bernie Sanders. Even if a large chunk of the Democratic base is extreme, in the end enough of them realized that to defeat Trump they can't simply present their ideal candidate, but rather someone who has a chance to sway more centrist independent voters. Indeed, opposition to Trump in the 2016 primaries was along those lines, not that most of the other GOP candidates were that accommodating.
 
#1,152
GlennS said:
There is a dire need for 3rd parties in the US. Ideology is multifaceted, far more than is expressed through the existing left/right paradigm. In lieu of 3rd parties one is asked to accept a basket of policies, some you support and some you don't, based on which issues you feel are most important. Since left and right have become increasingly polarized it's hard for someone closer to the center to figure out which side to support. But this explains why Biden won the primaries and not someone like Bernie Sanders. Even if a large chunk of the Democratic base is extreme, in the end enough of them realized that to defeat Trump they can't simply present their ideal candidate, but rather someone who has a chance to sway more centrist independent voters. Indeed, opposition to Trump in the 2016 primaries was along those lines, not that most of the other GOP candidates were that accommodating.
Click to expand...
More parties are needed because it will allow us to focus on actual policies. The major issue I see is that we currently are stuck with two parties that completely control the political narrative. Many of the progressive policies that leftists want, when polled individually, a plurality tend to support them. It's just getting those policies onto a platform that people won't find something else that forces them away. Which is hard with issues like abortion, healthcare, taxes, and guns on the list. With separate parties, the parties could actually work together to accomplish what they have as common goals, instead of the only common goal that it seems the Dems and repubs have of lining the pockets of the highest bidders
 
#1,153
GlennS said:
There is a dire need for 3rd parties in the US. Ideology is multifaceted, far more than is expressed through the existing left/right paradigm. In lieu of 3rd parties one is asked to accept a basket of policies, some you support and some you don't, based on which issues you feel are most important. Since left and right have become increasingly polarized it's hard for someone closer to the center to figure out which side to support. But this explains why Biden won the primaries and not someone like Bernie Sanders. Even if a large chunk of the Democratic base is extreme, in the end enough of them realized that to defeat Trump they can't simply present their ideal candidate, but rather someone who has a chance to sway more centrist independent voters. Indeed, opposition to Trump in the 2016 primaries was along those lines, not that most of the other GOP candidates were that accommodating.
Click to expand...
This clip explains how that can be done, like creating a proportional vote system
 
#1,154
all to gain said:
So who do you put as the best prime minster in your lifetime?

As for Thatcher, well she was a great statesman (read woman), but some of her domestic policies leave a lot to be desired. For example, transport systems, eg railways, should be kept under government control not privatised.

I would put May as probably the worst, but there are so many to choose from :(
Click to expand...
Agreed re Thatcher -- she was a very impressive person, esp for her time, but everyone complains that we don't have any industry left in the UK and we can definitely thank Thatcher for that.

I think May had at least one hand tied behind her back during her tenure, but yes she was pretty ineffective.

Cameron is another good choice for worst PM due to Brexit, as is Johnson. I already mentioned Blair, who set the Middle East on fire. You're right, we do have a lot to choose from.

Best PM during my lifetime -- there has not been one imo. Best of all time for me is Clement Atlee for the NHS, or Churchill for obvious reasons.
 
#1,155
Question: How do more parties solve the polarization problem? Doesn't it just make it worse? i.e. instead of two poles with a fair amount of independents, it creates many poles, but people are less interested in hearing viewpoints from the other poles?

Roughly speaking, only "enthusiastic" people vote. Therefore, the game becomes just exciting the most number of people to win you that 30% plurality. Wouldn't there be less compromising?

To me, first steps to reduce partisanship:

1) Make voting a national holiday. Do everything possible to increase voter turn out.
2) Get rid of the electoral college so that the all-or-none scoring system doesn't discourage people from getting involved.
3) During primary seasons, turn the voter population into a homogeneous group, as opposed to this bullshit like tailoring a message for Iowa voters to "get momentum" and then pivoting to pull in another group. Have everyone's vote and momentum count the same.
4) Term limits. Have the members of congress have more purpose during their terms as opposed to thinking about perpetuating power for the rest of time.

I would love for someone to change my mind on third parties besides just being frustrated with Republicans and Democrats. I am frustrated with our government, but I don't see third parties as the solution.

EDIT: The video that @Christiaan shared is very much in line with my point.
 
#1,156
Zugzug said:
Question: How do more parties solve the polarization problem? Doesn't it just make it worse? i.e. instead of two poles with a fair amount of independents, it creates many poles, but people are less interested in hearing viewpoints from the other poles?

Roughly speaking, only "enthusiastic" people vote. Therefore, the game becomes just exciting the most number of people to win you that 30% plurality. Wouldn't there be less compromising?

To me, first steps to reduce partisanship:

1) Make voting a national holiday. Do everything possible to increase voter turn out.
2) Get rid of the electoral college so that the all-or-none scoring system doesn't discourage people from getting involved.
3) During primary seasons, turn the voter population into a homogeneous group, as opposed to this bullshit like tailoring a message for Iowa voters to "get momentum" and then pivoting to pull in another group. Have everyone's vote and momentum count the same.

I would love for someone to change my mind on third parties besides just being frustrated with Republicans and Democrats. I am frustrated with our government, but I don't see third parties as the solution.
Click to expand...
If there's more parties, there's greater maneuverability between opinion blocs. So, you'd be more willing to hear arguments from those who are close to some of your other opinions, but differ on one. So, if you were convinced on that opinion, you could then move to that party instead. Currently, the two party system has too great of a divide for conversation to be really productive, so mobility of opinions is pretty set. More options would allow a gradual change. Further it wouldn't work if just a third party, you need more than that, and ranked choice voting, otherwise the whole concept wouldn't work.

As for your points, I agree on 1, 2 is an all or nothing system even without the electoral college, just at the party level, and 3 will never happen, because the voting population isn't homogeneous.
 
#1,158
WillBeNimble said:
If there's more parties, there's greater maneuverability between opinion blocs. So, you'd be more willing to hear arguments from those who are close to some of your other opinions, but differ on one. So, if you were convinced on that opinion, you could then move to that party instead. Currently, the two party system has too great of a divide for conversation to be really productive, so mobility of opinions is pretty set. More options would allow a gradual change. Further it wouldn't work if just a third party, you need more than that, and ranked choice voting, otherwise the whole concept wouldn't work.

As for your points, I agree on 1, 2 is an all or nothing system even without the electoral college, just at the party level, and 3 will never happen, because the voting population isn't homogeneous.
Click to expand...
You make a good point. I guess my critique of third parties is mostly in line with the current voting system. For sure, removing the all-or-none scoring and adding more parties has to coincide. Otherwise, there would be less maneuverability. But yeah, someone would change parties easier if they felt like the only downside was losing a few more seats over it.
 
#1,159
FGG said:
I read all your links. The evidence in your links is, she's close to her dad who despite not being a Marxist himself wasn't as "anti Marxist as other professors at the time", she is pro or at least does not oppose BLM and supports Medicare for all and the Green New Deal.

Oh and that she doesn't call herself a "democratic socialist" which your link mentioned must mean she's some other kind of hidden socialist... like a "Marxist".

It then goes on to say she will be as "bad of a Marxist as Obama".

So at this point, I have to ask. Do you consider Obama a Marxist?
Click to expand...
I am just offering some info and "food for thought. "
 
#1,160
#1,161
Talking about the need for a 3rd party, it seems that some people are seriously working on the formation of a leftwing populist People's Party. A convention will be held and some speakers are invited, some of whom were involved in Bernie's campaign and some have a strong media presence. It seems to have a a lot of traction from progressive voters who believe that the Democratic Party is unredeemable for more plurality due to corporate interests. They will probably start at a local level with ranked choice voting initiatives in Massachusetts, North Dakota, Utah and Alaska. This might not look good for the Democratic Party.


Screenshot_20200813-205204.png
 
#1,162
Christiaan said:
Talking about the need for a 3rd party, it seems that some people are seriously working on the formation of a leftwing populist People's Party. A convention will be held and some speakers are invited, some of whom were involved in Bernie's campaign and some have a strong media presence. It seems to have a a lot of traction from progressive voters who believe that the Democratic Party is unredeemable for more plurality due to corporate interests. They will probably start at a local level with ranked choice voting initiatives in Massachusetts, North Dakota, Utah and Alaska. This might not look good for the Democratic Party.


View attachment 40155
Click to expand...
I support Nina and Cornell, Jimmy pushes a few too many conspiracies for me, and I have no idea who Ryan Knight is. If they can push through ranked choice voting though, good on them.
 
#1,163
PeteJ said:
https://dailycaller.com/2020/08/12/portland-protesters-mike-schmidt-no-charges-policy/

Many politicians and political figures in the USA support far left ideologies, increasingly, and gradually, the policies are a reflection of that pursuit.

This DA supports antifa and far left radicalism. More people in politics supports such activism. Who is the "fascist?" Whatever, the totalitarianism is found on the Left.
Click to expand...
@PeteJ
It sickens me see this all across my country.
At this point I'll set aside my political preference to see peace restored in our country.
I pray that this senseless violence comes to an end soon.
 
#1,165
Tanni said:
Agreed re Thatcher -- she was a very impressive person, esp for her time, but everyone complains that we don't have any industry left in the UK and we can definitely thank Thatcher for that.

I think May had at least one hand tied behind her back during her tenure, but yes she was pretty ineffective.

Cameron is another good choice for worst PM due to Brexit, as is Johnson. I already mentioned Blair, who set the Middle East on fire. You're right, we do have a lot to choose from.

Best PM during my lifetime -- there has not been one imo. Best of all time for me is Clement Atlee for the NHS, or Churchill for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...
I wanted to edit my post, but I ran out of time. I was going to mention Blair and the Middle East and that he may top May for worst, but they have all been pretty terrible. I would need to look back at what Major etc did as I've forgotten to be honest.

Best ever is difficult, as I know little about the PMs from centuries past, but I would be tempted to go for Churchill, again for obvious reasons, but then the way he handled the Bengal famine could be held against him.

I find it difficult to pick as I don't identify with either side fully, and all PMs have blood on their hands.

I've come to the conclusion that you pretty much have to be a sociopath and psychopath to become a leader of a country; at least one of the bigger and more powerful countries.
 
#1,167
Zugzug said:
Question: How do more parties solve the polarization problem?
Click to expand...
People tend to gravitate towards dualistic thinking. Good/bad. Black hat/white hat. This is a childish oversimplification of how the world works and it furthers polarization. Sure, with a lot of third parties you can have sort of an ideological balkanization but I think it's preferable to the status quo. There are too many people who feel compelled to pick a side while they don't support a large chunk of their party's platform just because there are only two choices. So the two party system is sort of an illusion that doesn't represent people's true beliefs anyway. That's not a good way to manage a representative form of government.
 
#1,170
all to gain said:
To add, I would say that it isn't democracy either.
Click to expand...
Don't know about the situation in the US, but in the UK, there are strong rumours about talks between Labour and Liberal Democrats to form an electoral coalition next elections to shove aside the conservatives and implement a proportional system. At least people are less likely to vote strategically and thus vote accordingly to their ideals.
 

Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!

Register

Register on Tinnitus Talk for free!

Register Now

Similar threads

ZFire
2024 US Presidential Election
Replies
2K
Views
117K
General Chat
Fields
Fields
J
I'm a 75-Year-Old US Navy Veteran: My Tinnitus Started When I Turned in Bed While Sleeping
Replies
7
Views
1K
Introduce Yourself
JimMcD
J
just1morething
2022 U.S. Midterm Elections
Replies
2
Views
605
General Chat
just1morething
just1morething
Ivano_m
Can I Use Headphones with Unilateral Tinnitus?
Replies
5
Views
680
Support
BeepBeep
B
Varda
Increasing Pulsatile Tinnitus 6 Months After Onset of Regular Tinnitus — Dangerous Symptom? MRI Useful?
Replies
0
Views
708
Pulsatile Tinnitus
Varda
Varda
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Members
Donate
Menu