Kamala vs the Orange Felon - Presidential Race 2024 - Polls, News, Etc...

[dullard]

And now you're getting childish and defensive about your silly statement.

Please, do go on.

Sure. America is not the direct democracy that people think it is. We are a representative democracy. We do not vote directly on just about anything. We certainly do not vote on presidents -- which is what the discussion stemmed from. We vote for representatives to represent us. The representatives vote for presidents.

That representation is the fundamental basis on which our government is formed. That is not a silly statement.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Looks more like a class-and-race-based oligarchy to me.

Not untrue.

 

[nakedfrog]

Sure. America is not the direct democracy that people think it is. We are a representative democracy. We do not vote directly on just about anything. We certainly do not vote on presidents -- which is what the discussion stemmed from. We vote for representatives to represent us. The representatives vote for presidents.

That representation is the fundamental basis on which our government is formed. That is not a silly statement.

A fun song about the electors!

 

[cytg111]

Sure. America is not the direct democracy that people think it is. We are a representative democracy. We do not vote directly on just about anything. We certainly do not vote on presidents -- which is what the discussion stemmed from. We vote for representatives to represent us. The representatives vote for presidents.

That representation is the fundamental basis on which our government is formed. That is not a silly statement.

The minute details of the different forms of democracy is hardly the dividing feature when talking about western government. I feel like were back in third grade learning about set theory. Anyway, do your vote count and do you have separation of powers? That's where its at.

 

[K1052]

One of the two heads of the Trump campaign is apparently having a nice week.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819152633950576937

 

[MrSquished]

I think we should establish a direct democracy here. Let me start a poll, who thinks I should keep posting here or not. Wait....maybe let's stick with a representative democracy and I can gerrymander my district in P&N

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

With or without out the earmuffs?

 

[HomerJS]

MAGA vs Democrat agenda

 

[Fenixgoon]

MAGA vs Democrat agenda

The closing is perfect

 

[Perknose]

Kamala Harris ad on IMMIGRATION

It ends thusly:

“There are two choices in this election. The one who will fix our broken immigration system. And the one who is trying to stop her.”

^^^ We're coming out fighting, boy-os. This time, fighting hard and fighting smart. Trump is a wounded whale. He's a Dick, no Moby needed. Let's harpoon that ignorant mofo into oblivion.

 

[K1052]

Kamala has raised an ocean of cash.

Harris Campaign Says It Raised $310 Million in July, More Than Double Trump’s Haul

Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign survived a brutal few weeks of fund-raising in July to bounce back so dramatically before the end of the month that she more than doubled the amount of money raised by former President Donald J. Trump, her campaign announced on Friday.

The Harris campaign, which for the first 20 days of July was the Biden campaign, said it had raised $310 million during the month, including $200 million in just seven days after President Biden dropped out of the race.

The Trump campaign and its own allies said on Thursday that they had collected $139 million in July, an enormous sum but well short of what the Harris campaign said it had brought in amid a huge burst of enthusiasm about her candidacy. The Harris campaign raised almost as much in July as the Biden campaign had raised in March, April, May and June combined.

The surge in fund-raising has allowed Democrats, for the first time in months, to have a cash-on-hand advantage over Republicans. The Harris campaign said it now had $377 million in its war chest, in contrast to the $327 million that the Trump campaign has said it has.

 

[dullard]

The minute details of the different forms of democracy is hardly the dividing feature when talking about western government. I feel like were back in third grade learning about set theory. Anyway, do your vote count and do you have separation of powers? That's where its at.

We could debate about the historic impossibility of a direct democracy in a large country. But, internet and technology are making that at least a possible option. Not that I think we really want everything done by majority rules. A representative democracy at least has the chance of a technocrat: someone who will do what is right even if the majority is against it.

Does my vote count? I live in a deep red state: the results are all R no matter what I vote or if I don't vote at all. My votes over decades (which have been R, I, and D) have never once counted for any actual purpose other than a footnote showing the final tally. If we had a direct democracy, then my votes may have counted. Only voters in a few swing states actually have their votes count.

Separation of powers is only useful with proper and effective checks and balances. Otherwise we just have a set of competing kings/dictators. Recent events where the Supreme Court can be bought and the Congress lays down and ignores any wrong doings of a President of their party show that the current checks and balances are not effective.

 

[JD50]

What the fuck? Is there a single person in this country who thinks we're a direct democracy? Someone who has never heard of a senator, congressman, county council, etc...? I've never met someone who didn't realize we vote for people to represent us. Certainly no one who has voted before, since there are always names on the ballot.

You made a dumb statement, stop digging.

 

[JD50]

We could debate about the historic impossibility of a direct democracy in a large country. But, internet and technology are making that at least a possible option. Not that I think we really want everything done by majority rules. A representative democracy at least has the chance of a technocrat: someone who will do what is right even if the majority is against it.

Does my vote count? I live in a deep red state: the results are all R no matter what I vote or if I don't vote at all. My votes over decades (which have been R, I, and D) have never once counted for any actual purpose other than a footnote showing the final tally. If we had a direct democracy, then my votes may have counted. Only voters in a few swing states actually have their votes count.

Your vote counts in every election besides the general election for president because the Electoral college is stupid. There's a reason it's not used in any other election. Voting for a representative to vote for a representative is absurd.

Separation of powers is only useful with proper and effective checks and balances. Otherwise we just have a set of competing kings/dictators. Recent events where the Supreme Court can be bought and the Congress lays down and ignores any wrong doings of a President of their party show that the current checks and balances are not effective.

All put in place as a result of the Electoral college you're so fond of.

 

[JD50]

Sure. America is not the direct democracy that people think it is. We are a representative democracy. We do not vote directly on just about anything. We certainly do not vote on presidents -- which is what the discussion stemmed from. We vote for representatives to represent us. The representatives vote for presidents.

That representation is the fundamental basis on which our government is formed. That is not a silly statement.

Can you provide one example of this? Just one person who doesn't realize that Congress exists and thinks they vote directly on every piece of legislation and law in this country?

 

[pmv]

We could debate about the historic impossibility of a direct democracy in a large country. But, internet and technology are making that at least a possible option. Not that I think we really want everything done by majority rules. A representative democracy at least has the chance of a technocrat: someone who will do what is right even if the majority is against it.

Does my vote count? I live in a deep red state: the results are all R no matter what I vote or if I don't vote at all. My votes over decades (which have been R, I, and D) have never once counted for any actual purpose other than a footnote showing the final tally. If we had a direct democracy, then my votes may have counted. Only voters in a few swing states actually have their votes count.

Separation of powers is only useful with proper and effective checks and balances. Otherwise we just have a set of competing kings/dictators. Recent events where the Supreme Court can be bought and the Congress lays down and ignores any wrong doings of a President of their party show that the current checks and balances are not effective.

There are other ways your vote could be made to count than a 'direct democracy' (which I think would be a really bad idea). E.g. (and I gather this is already the case in some states?) don't allocate EC voters on an all-or-nothing/winner-takes-all basis. All states should allocate them at least roughly proportionally to the votes actually cast. To do this might require significantly increasing the total size of the EC, but as it doesn't serve much of a purpose outside of four-yearly elections I don't see that's a big problem.

And award states EC votes correctly proportional to their population - stop favouring lower-population states.


Also, as an aside, a technocrat in reality tends to mean someone who will do what is in the best interests of the technocrat class. I don't think that's a desirable thing, but it's also not relevant to the question anyway.

 

[dullard]

All put in place as a result of the Electoral college you're so fond of.

I detest the Electoral College. What are you smoking?

 

[Roger Wilco]

Harris +5 in a Rasmussen poll?!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819375139244363968

 

[cytg111]

We could debate about the historic impossibility of a direct democracy in a large country. But, internet and technology are making that at least a possible option. Not that I think we really want everything done by majority rules. A representative democracy at least has the chance of a technocrat: someone who will do what is right even if the majority is against it.

Does my vote count? I live in a deep red state: the results are all R no matter what I vote or if I don't vote at all. My votes over decades (which have been R, I, and D) have never once counted for any actual purpose other than a footnote showing the final tally. If we had a direct democracy, then my votes may have counted. Only voters in a few swing states actually have their votes count.

Separation of powers is only useful with proper and effective checks and balances. Otherwise we just have a set of competing kings/dictators. Recent events where the Supreme Court can be bought and the Congress lays down and ignores any wrong doings of a President of their party show that the current checks and balances are not effective.

1. Indeed and it's not a debate you'll get from me, Am simply not qualified to tread those waters .

2. You still have to vote though, cause shit may change and the only way for that to happen is if you havent forgotten how this shit works.

3. Yup. You got your work cut out for you. Take your country back from the brink.

 

[cytg111]

Harris +5 in a Rasmussen poll?!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819375139244363968

Last poll history I saw was harris coming up with a 0 then +2, then +5 ... Yea that is called acceleration. Momentum building bitches. Fuck yea.

 

[HomerJS]

Little swipe from Paris

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819284274224173147

 

[K1052]

People who do this kind of stuff, Elon included, should get sent to prison.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819374704488013844

 

[cytg111]

He really do need a face bashing.

 

[K1052]

tis the season

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819395361825497405

 

[nakedfrog]

We could debate about the historic impossibility of a direct democracy in a large country. But, internet and technology are making that at least a possible option. Not that I think we really want everything done by majority rules. A representative democracy at least has the chance of a technocrat: someone who will do what is right even if the majority is against it.

Does my vote count? I live in a deep red state: the results are all R no matter what I vote or if I don't vote at all. My votes over decades (which have been R, I, and D) have never once counted for any actual purpose other than a footnote showing the final tally. If we had a direct democracy, then my votes may have counted. Only voters in a few swing states actually have their votes count.

If you live in district 2, it could have a chance of counting!

There are other ways your vote could be made to count than a 'direct democracy' (which I think would be a really bad idea). E.g. (and I gather this is already the case in some states?) don't allocate EC voters on an all-or-nothing/winner-takes-all basis. All states should allocate them at least roughly proportionally to the votes actually cast. To do this might require significantly increasing the total size of the EC, but as it doesn't serve much of a purpose outside of four-yearly elections I don't see that's a big problem.

And award states EC votes correctly proportional to their population - stop favouring lower-population states.

Yes, he lives in one of the rare states that allows for a split electoral vote, in 2008 and 2020 Nebraska sent 1 electoral vote for Obama and then Biden, respectively. Naturally the Republican governor thinks they need to do away with it.