willedoo Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 Apologies for posting this in the wrong section; I realize it should be in 'Funnies', but it has some relevance to this thread. A report has suggested that Mike Bloomberg wants Hillary Clinton as his running mate, with polls suggesting that the combination would be a “formidable force” to take on Trump. https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/bloomberg-reportedly-considers-hillary-clinton-as-running-mate/news-story/7abbafa1066b4f3aff92be815b1fda6a
pmccarthy Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 And the relevance of that pair to ordinary Americans is?
old man emu Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 How's this for a complicated way of choosing a President? This year, the presidential election will be officially decided, not by the voters themselves, but by the Electoral College, a group of 538 electors who vote for the president and vice president after the popular vote is cast. During the general election Joe Citizen's vote helps determine his State’s electors. When he votes for a Presidential candidate, he isn't actually voting for President. He is telling your State which candidate he wants his State to vote for at the meeting of electors. The States use these general election results (also known as the popular vote) to appoint their electors. The winning candidate’s State political party selects the individuals who will be electors.
spacesailor Posted February 16, 2020 Posted February 16, 2020 Sounds a better idea, than those Aussie pollie's choosing their mates to be our None elected president. Just like the English republic !. spacesailor
Marty_d Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 Sounds a better idea, than those Aussie pollie's choosing their mates to be our None elected president. Just like the English republic !. spacesailor We don't have a president, elected or not. We have a Prime Minister, who is simply the person who is in charge of the party until they get rolled by someone else.
old man emu Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 Actually, the process in the US is for each Presidential candidate to submit to each State a list the names of people who would make up the "electors" for that State if that candidate wins. When a candidate wins the popular election in a State, his/her list of "electors" are the ones who attend the Electoral College and vote for the President. The final decision on who will be President depends on the total number of electors in each candidate's team. Electoral votes are allocated among the States based on the Census. Currently all States use the popular vote results from the November general election to decide which political party chooses the individuals who are appointed. There are currently 538 electors in all. A candidate needs the vote of at least 270 electors—more than half of all electors—to win the presidential election. It is possible to win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote. This happened in 2016 to Hillary. If no candidate receives the majority of electoral votes, the vote goes to the House of Representatives. House members choose the new president from among the top three candidates. The Senate elects the vice president from the remaining top two candidates. The process of using electors comes from the Constitution. It was a compromise between a popular vote by citizens and a vote in Congress. In both Australia and the US, it is the faceless party members in the backroom who select the candidates each party will put up for election. We plebs still don't have any say in it.
Marty_d Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 In both Australia and the US, it is the faceless party members in the backroom who select the candidates each party will put up for election. We plebs still don't have any say in it. Actually, in Labor the faceless members get (I think) 60% of the vote, and the plebs who are members of the party get the other 40%. Not sure what the other lot do.
Jerry_Atrick Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 Then the Labour party has changed its constitution.. as I recall, they had public office selection committees who were completely responsible for selecting state and federal candidates..
Marty_d Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 Sorry, I must have misread OME's post. I thought he was talking about the process for selecting a leader.
old man emu Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 Sorry, I must have misread OME's post. I thought he was talking about the process for selecting a leader. No, its the process for selecting a President, or in Yank-talk, a POTUS. No mention of "leadership" there.
onetrack Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 You don't need a degree to figure out the American political and capitalist system. It runs on money, and the pursuit of wealth. The person who can raise the most money from backers, becomes President. And the rich ensure the candidate that wins, does nothing to stop them from increasing their already mind-boggling wealth. They have "In God We Trust" on their coinage, the motto should be "In the Almighty Dollar We Trust". God comes last in their society, even though they mouth all the right Biblical sayings. The greatest sign that Americans have no faith in the God of the Bible, is the fact that they take their guns to church. If God turned up there, he'd throw them out, for worshipping guns and money, rather than him. There's only one place in the Bible where Jesus Christ showed violent anger - when he overturned the money changers tables in the Temple, and threw them out. That should be a real warning to so-called Christians, who spend all their lives in pursuit of money, rather than showing love and compassion to their fellow men who have fallen on hard times, or who lack the ability to progress in life. I'm always amused by the millionaires and billionaires who brag about giving away millions, or even a billion or two, trying to make themselves look good. In comparison to their total wealth, the amount they give away, is the equivalent to small change, for us plebs. They seem to forget about the "widows mite" parable.
Yenn Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 If God came back to earth or is it Jesus, how do you think Donald would greet him. Probably say he was fake. Same goes for the Pope.
pmccarthy Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 The Donald is the closest thing to JC we have had for 2000 years. Telling the world how to behave, saying he is perfect, and believing he is the son of God. Maybe he will be worshipped after another 300 years.
facthunter Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Modesty is not his strong point, or critical self evaluation.. Is HE terrific?? Of course, just ask the highest authority and he will tell you he definitely IS. IF God comes back he can wait like all other "sub Donald" creatures and see what DEAL can be worked out. If there's enough time to fit him in. Nev
old man emu Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 If Trump was the British Prime Minister and acted the way he does, then he'd be awarded the GCMG - God Calls Me God.
willedoo Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 The good old Washington Post has reported that "people familiar with the matter" have said that U.S. officials have warned Bernie Sanders that those pesky Russians are trying to help him get elected. They've also warned Trump that those same pesky Russians are trying to get him elected as well. Damn clever, that Putin character. One Russian puppet in the White House is not enough, so he's obviously hatched a clever plan to install two U.S. Presidents. Who would have thought of that one? I wonder if they would have to share the same bathroom.
Methusala Posted February 22, 2020 Posted February 22, 2020 Ooh, those Wiley Russians! Have they learned nothing since the mad monk Rasputin? Next they will be attemptin' the same silly pranks on Albo and the Greens here.
willedoo Posted February 23, 2020 Posted February 23, 2020 Bernie has swept the field in Nevada. It's starting to really look like a Sanders vs Trump election. That would be an interesting campaign.
Yenn Posted February 23, 2020 Posted February 23, 2020 Love him or hate him, it makes no difference. The republicans will vote for him and the democrats will not, so which are there more of, or at least more who can affect the vote. The republicans see him as the USA answer to John Howard., so we will have to wait for more Yanks to become disappointed with him, not for more to like a democrat candidate. Really I see little difference between him and our present PM, both know nothing and don't achieve anything.
willedoo Posted February 23, 2020 Posted February 23, 2020 Good point, Yenn. It's very rare you see a good popular government lose an election because the opposition looks better. In most cases, governments lose the election rather than a case of the opposition winning it. Most new governments win by default because the previous sitting government stuffed up.
old man emu Posted February 23, 2020 Posted February 23, 2020 Most new governments win by default because the previous sitting government stuffed up. So, the Conservatives lose an election because they stuff up, then the non-Conservatives get onto power but lose a later election because they stuff up. The logical conclusion to this is that neither Conservatives nor non-Conservatives are fit to govern because they both stuff at governing. 2
old man emu Posted February 23, 2020 Posted February 23, 2020 Here's some info about Donald's parents. Frederick Christ Trump (October 11, 1905 – June 25, 1999) was an American businessman and philanthropist. He was a prominent real-estate developer in New York City. His middle name comes from his mother, Elizabeth Christ Trump (née Christ; October 10, 1880 – June 6, 1966) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Christ_Trump
Yenn Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 OME your post 447 is so correct. Just think back to all our previous elections.
Marty_d Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 So, the Conservatives lose an election because they stuff up, then the non-Conservatives get onto power but lose a later election because they stuff up. The logical conclusion to this is that neither Conservatives nor non-Conservatives are fit to govern because they both stuff at governing. Conservatism is fine - if you're an engineer. However, people, societies and economies are not simple equations subject only to the laws of physics. Therefore political, economic and social conservatism are inherently flawed ideas.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now