It’s also the only reason he is running for president. The Hail Mary to have the DOJ drop the cases if he wins.
Horrible Choices
- Thread starter Gonolz
- Start date
Anyone would try to delay these trials. That's just reality.
It's part of the process...
Exactly the right answer unless you don't really want everyone's vote to count. I'm willing to listen to why you think we should continue with it though.
This is because we have ignored and continue to clear and obvious flaws in our democracy.
Our democracy is the best ideas that 1787 had to offer with a few minor updates now and then.
But instead we're wondering why Windows 3.1 isn't running our modern programs. The whole operating system needs a massive update. But we can't do that, we won't do it. Constitution is too hard to change. You need 3/4ths of the states to approve of a change and that's not going to happen.
Trump is the worst candidate in our history, AINEC. Outside of being very old, Biden is actually a solid candidate. The choice is simple, if you want democracy and stability, vote Biden.
Bill Cosby was a great:
- Comic
- Actor
- Humanitarian
- Black advocate
- Major role in the development of a more positive portrayal of Blacks on television.
- Outspoken about the need for African Americans to pursue higher education.
- Drugged and raped women.
LOL. He's not "everyone". He's running for freaking President of the United States. Man, you people.
Again, to reiterate you would THINK he would want to clear his name blah blah blah....
Proportional representation, ranked choice voting, reducing the powers or eliminating completely the upper house.
KJP was trying to say this yesterday, but couldn't name any. It's not a criticism of her though, I can't either.
Republicans Are Taking Credit for Infrastructure Bill They All Voted Against
Amazing about-face from the members of Congress who tried to stop the bill in the first place
newrepublic.com
There's always that. One of the bills that the Republicans all voted against, but then praised it afterwards to make it seem like they had a part in passing it.
For anyone who is interested on cue Vox did a video on this topic. I propose using a system similar to Germany's. Mixed member proportional representation.
Honestly part of me wonders how our system might kill turnout at the polls. I mean if you are the minority politically speaking in the state and locality you are in and you know that you are in the minority... what is even the point of voting? You know all or nearly all the people you are voting for are going to lose. So why does it matter??
Sad thing is 80% or more of our elections up and down the ballot are pretty much pre determined. And to be fair it isn't just gerrymandering as the video points out.
Honestly part of me wonders how our system might kill turnout at the polls. I mean if you are the minority politically speaking in the state and locality you are in and you know that you are in the minority... what is even the point of voting? You know all or nearly all the people you are voting for are going to lose. So why does it matter??
Sad thing is 80% or more of our elections up and down the ballot are pretty much pre determined. And to be fair it isn't just gerrymandering as the video points out.
Last edited:
So Idaho doesn’t get as many senators as California? Is that what you mean by proportional representation? If so, your republicans would never control the Senate again.
No the idea is that the house has it's party makeup determined by the percentage of the vote nationally for that party. This encourages people to vote for smaller parties and allows people in the minority of their area to still have their voices heard.
The senate should either not exist or should lose a lot of it's power. A lot of nations have an upper house similar to the senate where it has a very distant relationship with views of the voters. The difference is in most nations their "upper house" has very little power whereas in our country the upper house actually has more power than the lower house.
If we operated like most nations the senate would not have any power over the purse, or much power over passing most laws.
That upper house was created to prevent exactly what you are trying to push. It is fine just the way it is. At some point some of the leftist need to go back to school and learn a little bit about how federal government was created and why it was organized the way it was.
The founding fathers were not gods and the constitution is not a perfect document.
It's a layout for democracy written nearly 250 years ago. There have been developments in democracy since then which would better represent the views of the voters.
Our democracy is crumbling and very unrepresentative of the views of the voters and the reason for it is because we've stuck to a plan from 250 years ago instead of updating and improving things.
Speaking of morans - anyone who tries to establish a false equivalency between Biden and Trump.
Had they been smart, we'd have a parliamentary system that added value to third and fourth and fifth parties. The idiots defending what we have are the same idiots that decry the "two-party system" that the FF's locked us into. They don't know what they're talking about.
The parliamentary system does not necessarily mean multi-party system. The UK is parliamentary but is functionally a 2 party system. The other parties that sneak in there such as SNP and Lib-Dems are never going to even be the largest minority party much less control commons. Canada and Australia are also functionally 2 party systems.
On the other hand France is a Semi-presidential republic that has multiple parties with significant seats and Argentina is an example of a fully presidential republic which has more than 2 parties with multiple seats.
The main thing is that the system you use to select your legislature has to be a system that's designed to allow people to speak their minds through the vote instead of just vote for the lesser of 2 evils that on the ballot. Unfortunately the founders took and copied the electoral system of the UK which is winner take all single member districts.
I think asking the US to convert to a parliamentary system is too big of an ask at least at this point, although I do see some advantages to a parliamentary system when multiple parties have to form coalitions.
I actually think the PM's in the UK and Canada are too powerful since they can call elections whenever they feel like it. I do like the idea of a snap election when it's necessary but I think they should only be called if certain criteria can be clearly met instead of whenever a PM feels like the election would benefit him and his party. For example one criteria I might use for a snap election is if 2 PM's resign or lose confidence votes within 12 months of each other.
Last edited:
The Brits are not locked into that, however. The Labor Party could take control even with fewer seats with a coalition that outnumbered the Conservative Party. The US simply couldn't function with multiple parties. Our system doesn't allow it unless you want the House electing the president every four years. It would literally be a tyranny of the minority.
Yes but coalition government is the Lib-Dems best hope and that's happened like one time.
I agree our system doesn't really allow for multiple parties. Which is why for president we should do ranked choice voting.
I propose essentially electing our house of representatives like Germany elects the Bundestag and electing our president through a ranked choice popular vote.
I suppose I didn't mention it but the electoral college needs to go.
The senate needs to be radically disempowered or eliminated. I would propose removing from the senate the power of the purse, removing it's role in most legislation. The powers we might leave it with are confirmation of cabinet posts, military officers, and judges. I would also give it a say in constitutional amendments.
I would also say judicial appointments need to be limited to 18 years. And I might even consider that SCOTUS judges should be subject to popular retention votes every 6 years or so and must leave their post after 18 years. Any SCOTUS judge losing a retention vote may not be re-nominated to the court.
