Topic: [BET] Trump or Harris 2024, Poker Player vs suchmoon - page 3. (Read 2359 times)

It's nearly impossible for anything like that to happen even at the state level, let alone federal elections, which would basically require an amendment to the constitution. The party that stands to lose from it (Republicans in this case but I doubt it would be much different if the roles were reversed) has enough power to block any such changes.

I hope I am not again saying something you are not saying, but it looks a bit like "since Europe is not perfect, we are ok" or "it could be worse".

I am certainly not here to defend the different European systems, although I would like to see the Swiss system in the US for a couple of years, just for the laughs of the popular initiatives that would come out. I like one rep per districts, because you have someone, with a name, that can answer for what he or she has done individually and a small district  is sufficiently granular IMO.

On the British one, the imbalances are not massive. The French one is per "small-ish" districts, Spain has imbalances in the regions, but not massive, Italy reformed in 2017 and has a mix of representation and proportionality which in theory could be useful... I mean, if it were not Italy... Germany is a mixed system as well...

There are many electoral systems, but honestly so many people ignored is kind of a record. It is more evident in the senate, but also state by state.

Take Texas, which has not voted Dems since... Carter apparently. The real result in 2020 is 53% Reps, 44% Dems. All mayor cities are Dems. You would need to ask why the vote of nearly 45% of the people is valued at zero. That does not look like representing the will of the people correctly, I mean, 45% is nearly half.

You certainly have many options, even if at least you could assign representatives proportionally per state or using D'Hont you would be getting a significant improvement.

And as she has been doing with the Dem Deep State leaders for years. Anybody who wants a touch of understanding of how this all works, watch...

DR Lee Merritt and Dr Bryan Ardis - https://www.bitchute.com/video/KDeYswPUyRVc

Congratulations on having the balls to place such a bet, suchmoon. I could never bring myself to place such a wager even if I was so sure about the election result.

Yes, surely my mentality is more focused on European electoral disproportions, where the difference in the weight of votes between regions is sometimes 1 to 0.9  or at most 1 to 0.5.

You seem to be referring to imbalances of single-seat districts, that's not quite the same (purposeful gerrymandering aside) as deliberate disenfranchising of certain groups of voters. Districts can get redrawn to make them more fair, and multi-seat systems exist that achieve better proportionality, but that has nothing to do with the arcane BS that is US electorate system.

At least you recognize it. But it gets to a contradictory point because for you to say that the absolutely proportional system is better because the LA urbanite is going to be able to take into consideration in their vote what is in the interest of the Oklahoma highlands does not match with you saying that half of the electorate (75/80 million people) are retarded for voting for Trump.


Take an eraser if you have written the point in pencil or white out if you have written it in pen and explain how the goat herders of the Scottish Highlands have more power than the Londoners of the Westminster district and that is why their votes weigh more.


No, you have a totally distorted vision because the weighed electoral systems of most of the world were established where there was no slavery and where more weight is given to the areas that have less power. The Romans and what happened in the USA are rather exceptions, not the norm.


Yes, we can (lol).


No, what I am saying is that within the imperfection of all electoral systems the weighed one does not seem to me so bad and that the purely proportional one harms some minorities, which curiously in this case do not seem to worry you.

Although if we were to make the ideal system, the difference in weight between the most important vote and the least important one should not be more than double, and I believe that in the USA it is up to triple or more in some cases.


I don't know if you have noticed that here there is a certain level in the discussions, since you say that you could explain why, otherwise you come off as an illiterate who gets carried away by slogans.

Trump will win and he will lead America to glory, not to communism, as Harris wants to do

Ok, you said "no system is perfect", then we can agree there are different levels of imperfection?

Let's create the Paxmanian scale of Authoritarism ranging from 10 - North Korea (where normal people do not dare to even utter a word to a journalist) to 0 - Switzerland (who like referendums as sport).

A system in which there is a difference of 50 million people in favour of option A (Dems)  versus option B (Reps) and yet still option B gets simlar results to A in the Senate seems more towards the 4 than towards the  7. Same system that ges more people voting for Hilary, but gets you Trump as POTUS. I did not hear anything about "rigging" when that happened.

You argue that people in the country would be ignored if the system was proportional (hope I am accurate enough). Well, in my view it is because in a democracy more people decide over less people. All people have some individual rights (e.g. freedom of movement, no indentured servitude,...) and there are some general rights (e.g. free press), other than that, it is all about majorities yes.

I tend to use humour for illustration purposes, but I hope this addresses the core issues correctly.


Yep, and one of the later ones will be Georgia. Virginia if comes out fast will be good from Kam, else for Trump.

The problem is that they are not going to limit themselves to cry, they may actually try to "take action" of some short.

It makes perfect sense.  And yes, it's absolutely elitist thinking.  And yes, not just in America.  Whenever a country decides to make some peoples votes count more than others, it's because the people that currently have power are concerned about losing it.  Full stop.  That's the primary reason. 

I think the Romans were first to do it, and they literally just did it based off wealth and social status. 

The electoral college in America was established in the the late 1700s. It wasn't until 1920 that women had the right to vote.  1965 for black people.  I'm trying to just give the facts, but do you not think that's really fucked up?  Or do you just hear a liberal talking about racism and assume it's just a made up world, or they must just be pretending care about it to make people think they are a good person?  I don't understand how anyone with a basic understanding of history can join this growing  "calling out racism is the real problem" movement. 

I find this way of looking at reality that you have, based on which everything is discrimination, touching.

If you notice, I was speaking in the plural.

Surely in Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, UK, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia and many others they made a weighed electoral system, which, in fact, is the majority by far around the world, to discriminate against blacks.

According to you the majority electoral system around the world makes no sense, wonderful, but I am not surprised because I am already used to see that elitist thinking.

Give it a few more years and the Supreme Court will bring that back.

---

So here it is finally, the election day is just a few hours away. I wish I could say the circus will be over in a couple of days but it probably won't be. Some key states will be extremely slow to count votes, particularly mail-ins, and the orange one will be screaming "fraud" the whole time.

That's not the reason for the electoral college. (And it really doesn't make sense unless you have a valid argument that rural areas are inherently more important than urban areas, and that voters in urban areas are inherently unable to consider the importance of parts of the country they do not live)

When they were deciding how presidential elections would work, there were about 1.29 million in the north vs 1.34 million in the south - but the north still had an advantage of almost 40% more eligible voters.

How can that be, you ask?

Well, in the south of the 1.34 million people, about 500k of them were slaves who couldn't vote and about 800k were white.

In the north, only about 50k were slaves, leaving 1.2 million white people.

(only the white men that met various state requirements could vote)


The south knew if they didn't have enough political power, the radical woke social justice warriors would elect a liberal who would come and seize their property (black people) and their businesses would no longer be viable (slavery is extremely profitable).  They didn't want to go woke, because that would mean they went broke.  

So, in order to stop the woke mob from the north from electing a communist, the south insisted that their slaves should be counted as people when determining how much weight each state gets in the electoral college but counted as their personal property without any human rights at all other times.

The North didn't like this idea, but ultimately they compromised on counting each slave as 3/5ths of one white person.  

And everyone lived happily ever after.  God bless the USA.

No, what is a fallacy is to change what I say, so that it somehow resembles what I said but is not what I said, and then go on to refute me. And it's not the first time you've done that to me.

I don't know what you expect me to respond to. You want me to agree with you about your rebuttal to what I didn't say? Okay, you're right.

I got the feeling he does not need me.

On the electoral system, it is a logical fallacy to argue that it should not be changed "because anyway it won't be perfect".

One thing is not having a "perfect system" and another is to have a system in which less people decide over more people, which is pretty much the opposite to the definition of democracy - following your argument, the people not living in cities have the right to impose their conditions on the people living in cities despite being in a minority, thus ignoring the interests of the majority.

We are not talking a small thing here, we are talking 50 million people being made equal to zero in the Senate on grounds of equal weight of States - on a House that can basically only oppose and delay.

My take on this is that electoral votes in the state should be given following some degree of proportionality (e.g. D'Hont or direct proportionality above 5% threshold...). It may even give way to representing other than 2 parties (the 2 party system has serious problems of encroaching corruption).

I am not the only one thinking this https://protectdemocracy.org/work/proportional-representation-for-the-united-states/


When Republicans argue that the system is "rigged", I can only agree. It is rigged in their favour  . Hereby I authorise Trump to quote that under a "quote in full" condition. Hereby I authorise him to add "like the world has never sheeen".

 Have a go at Gerrymandering and see why is so addictive

On reproductive rights, he setup the SCOTUS so that bans could be implemented. In a way, he has paved the way already but there is a reason for it: the vote of the Evangelists, Methodists, etc... If he goes back to soft on abortion, these may also be less inclined to vote. I did see Melania's speaking about it... well, there may be a backslash from these groups or not.

On illegal immigration, the reason why Biden could issue permits to such a number of illegal immigrants is because they were there in the first place. My point is that you cannot really close the border with Mexico , because the transport of goods is nowadays massive in economic terms. And you cannot really "build a wall" that is effective. The illegal immigration will be there because is mostly composed of people who are running from failed states, drug lords, corruption and above all, empty stomach levels poverty. There is nothing you can do to them worse than what they run from.

You need to manage them, because they will keep coming.

On proliferation;

1 - Nearly any country has the potential to develop an atomic weapon. The technology is many decades old - yet still quite effective in terms of air-to-air defence avoidance. Among those, Iran and North Korea in my book do not qualify as "responsible", but look, even the neo-nazis might take power in otherwise "responsible" European states. And it does not take to have a world ending incident to create an unacceptable result of millions dead and massive increases in cancer worldwide. That type of incident increases very quickly as more actors have the weapons.

2 - The use of nukes by Ruzzia has not happened for a reason. All the "red lines" have been systematically broken, including for example, Ukraine destroying yet another refinery (billions) 1500 km away from the front or invaded Kursk (Ruzzia properly). Escalation requires reaching a new level of war in which you switch the advantage of the opponent to your advantage - that is why Ruzzia has not used nukes (I do not think Putin would physically survive that).

3 - Territory as a liability... well that is really something. Territory between Moscow and Berlin is "buffer", not a liability in the European books.

4 - On Trump not damaging NATO beyond repair, you say that the Republicans would prevent that - to which I can only observe that every Rep that has opposed Trump has been catapulted into oblivion. It is nearly impossible to oppose Trump a keep being a viable candidate.  On Trump being impeached and convicted, he has already been convicted without any particular repercussion and was not impeached even after instigating a march to the Capitol and remaining silent while it took a violent turn. It does not look like the impeachable type does it?

The thing is that it is much better for the US and its allies to have distance and resistance between Ruzzia and Europe, else you need to spend billions in creating that defence and deterrence... or, well,... arm Germany, Finland and  Poland perhaps with nukes and wait for the extreme anti-EU right to take power to test their "responsibility".

Bottom line, too many risks, too big of possible impacts on a Trump presidency, the type of risks I would not want to be on the table.

I didn't know anything about Chase Oliver but I will find out about him, on the other hand Rand Paul I do know and whenever I hear him speak I see him as a very reasonable guy and I like his ideas.

Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver would be ~ideal from my perspective. He usually says exactly the same thing I'd say on any given issue. Oliver's not going to win, of course. Of people who could realistically be a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate someday, I'd be a lot happier with one of the libertarian-leaning Republicans like Rand Paul, or one of the progressive Democrats like Ro Khanna. Neither of those groups are perfect, but they're a lot closer to me on the political compass than Trump or Harris.


Trump won't do anything significant on abortion. After Dobbs, he (correctly) views it as a political loser. He even had Melania come out as pro-choice to soften his image on the matter.


Presidents have a lot of control over the border overall. Trump basically closed the border during the pandemic, which Biden maintained for a while, but then Biden gave work permits to over a million illegal residents just by proclamation (via TPS designations). Trump probably can't do his massive deportation without Congress because DHS wouldn't have enough funding, but he could slash both legal and illegal immigration through various executive actions.


That is an interesting argument which I hadn't heard before in a Trump vs Harris context. I do agree that if the US is a less-reliable ally, then that will lead to nuclear proliferation. I would for example predict that by 2028, Ukraine will either have a pro-Russian government, be under somebody's nuclear umbrella, or have its own nukes (which it can develop in a few months).

But ultimately I don't find the argument that convincing:
 - I'm not actually that worried about nuclear proliferation. I tend to think that if a country has the resources to develop nukes, then it probably has enough not-totally-insane people around to prevent nukes from being used in a way that would cause global devastation. For example, North Korea and Pakistan are not exactly stable or friendly countries, but nobody there wants their worlds and lives to end, so they've been able to have nukes without using them for a long time. I'd currently estimate the probability of global nuclear devastation in my lifetime at something like 3%, and if we added a few more nuclear countries, my estimate would only go up a percentage point or two, or even less if we're talking about stable EU countries like Italy.
 - Hawkish US policies can also increase the risk of nuclear war. If Russia gets desperate enough, they might actually use nukes (starting with small tactical nukes). If we were extremely worried about nuclear war, we'd do some amount of appeasement, and not consider it totally unacceptable if aggressive nuclear powers manage to slowly conquer territory. Long-term, we'd hope that they'd collapse from within due to their inferior economic systems and internal resistance, and/or we'd strengthen our own conventional/nuclear weaponry and infrastructure to be overwhelmingly better than theirs. To a large extent, control of territory is more of a liability than an asset. If we allowed Ukrainians and Taiwanese to freely immigrate to the West, and then Russia/China took these territories, I'd see that as a net gain for the West: the people are what's most valuable, and occupying that territory is mostly just going to be a long-term drag on the aggressors.
 - Even if Trump's explicit goal was to destroy NATO (which it's not), the most he'd be able to do is chip away at it a little bit, since even most Republicans are very pro-NATO. If Trump did anything too blatant, he actually would be impeached and convicted. The most anti-NATO thing I can imagine Trump getting away with is: Russia does a limited invasion of some worthless territory in northern Finland or Norway, Trump ignores it, and NATO's deterrence value is therefore damaged. That'd be a hit to NATO, but a future pro-NATO president could undo the damage. Making the US fully isolationist would be a project of decades, not just 4 years.

Pretty sure Rogan turned it down because Harris wanted him to travel to her and only do 1 hour and, as usual, everything else you just posted are just lies to try and help Trump.

I understand the joke but I prefer to invest the amounts that make the difference, not bet them.


There is no perfect electoral system.


The problem with proportional electoral systems, those that come closest to each person's vote being equal in electoral weight to one vote, is that the great majority of people live in urban areas and for them the problems of rural areas are not a priority. If you equalize the weight of the votes, the electoral result will reflect what the urbanites want, leaving the people of rural areas marginalized. In addition, you also further incentivize people from rural areas to move to cities, if all policy is focused on them.


I'm going to tell Trump to quote you if he loses, lol.