Non - US views on last night’s election debate

[Ray]

On the basis that it’s always useful to hold up a mirror to activities that we experience, I attach a BBC article which summarises global reaction to the USA presidential Debate last night.

I think it’s pretty non-partisan, and it’s in that spirit that I share it. Overall summary is that the whole thing was a bit embarrassing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54354405

[crfriend]

I think it’s pretty non-partisan, and it’s in that spirit that I share it. Overall summary is that the whole thing was a bit embarrassing.

It's quite non-partisan and deserves serious consideration. Even with contemplative consideration, though, everything is cast in stone because it's going to be one or the other of the two. The sad thing is that the loser in this latest farce is going to be the US population as a whole, just as it's been the loser in every "election" since 1980.

I didn't bother to watch the spectacle, but in a conversation with one of the publicans at my local it came out in these words: "You didn't miss anything. I walked away in disgust." I haven't yet had the opportunity to ask my housemates what they thought of the thing, and I know that one of them was fully intending on watching it. We'll all figure out the opinions of everybody else in the house in a few days' time. At least here we operate with the understanding that there is vastly more that unites us than divides us -- which is most welcome to this tired old observer.

But, the bottom line is that the US public is going to be the loser in this. Again. And this is quite possibly the last "election" to be held here.

[Faldaguy]

Ray » Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:02 pm

On the basis that it’s always useful to hold up a mirror to activities that we experience, I attach a BBC article which summarises global reaction to the USA presidential Debate last night.

Sadly much of the US population is very ethnocentric and unaware of how other's on this planet view the US -- most still seem to think they are seen as the land of milk and honey, and money, and at the top of the charts in all things ... despite any failings they do acknowledge. So, I'm doubtful the opinion pieces cited will have much influence, accurate or not. As Carl noted, it is the population at large that have been the real victims of the political carnage that has become the norm in the past few decades, accelerating to terminal velocity....with this election?

Friends, if you missed it; thank your lucky stars as so many wrote: Any choice other than watching the debacle last night was a better use of time.

[r.m.anderson]

But, the bottom line is that the US public is going to be the loser in this. Again. And this is quite possibly the last "election" to be held here.

Good God does that mean the President is going to be appointed by Senate ?

So much for our form of government of the people for the people SO HELP US GOD !

[Faldaguy]

by r.m.anderson » Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:12 pm

But, the bottom line is that the US public is going to be the loser in this. Again. And this is quite possibly the last "election" to be held here.

Good God does that mean the President is going to be appointed by Senate ?

So much for our form of government of the people for the people SO HELP US GOD !

No, the greater worry is that by using delaying tactics disputing mail in votes, etc. the electorate's decision can be delayed past the required date of announcement; then by employing the STATES (who can legally control the electoral college decision) can be used to assign each States single vote. Thus it is technically possible for the STATES to make the final decision, which the SCOTUS would confirm if needed. Given there are more 'red' States than blue, this becomes a very real tactic. I frankly expect this is Trump's back-up plan, and already there is evidence the RNC is prepping the red State Governor's for this procedure. Tactically, it is brilliant; but scary and may indeed be the precursor of "the last election".

Below is a link to an article that outlines in more detail some of the methodology that can be employed legally.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... on/608989/

[Sinned]

Man, you really do have a totally screwed up election system. Here it's by constituency, first past the post. There may be a rerun if the first result results in a hung parliament and consensus can't be agreed. So, in theory, the people still decide. Every so often they rejig the constituencies to balance them due to changing populations. Or to favour one party over another. Not sure which is the true one.

I don't know if this is right or not but I did read that if Trump doesn't hand over at the appointed time then the VP temporarily becomes the President.

[Grok]

I have seen American politics described as a Cold Civil War, or an Internal Cold War. You would have to go back to the 1860s to find a time with greater internal conflict.

This time around it is rather messy, without necessarily conforming to regional boundaries. I will give the example of Black Lives Matters here in Seattle. Seattle is considered the third most liberal city is the U.S., and has a history of labor radicalism. Lately there have been demands that the Seattle Police Dept. be "defunded" (that is, gutted) based on incidents in other parts of the country.

[Grok]

Basically, adapting the federal structure for a more decentralized country. On social issues there would tend would be diversity, with different locations voting in different policies.

The Federal Government would be limited to just a few functions, which would serve the country as a whole.

I imagine that election shenanigans could help trigger such a trend, because it could make the presidency less important in terms of domestic politics.

It was suggested in the book American Nations that decentralization might be the only common ground for different regions to come together on.

The "Blue Exit" part? The blue states would retain a larger share of the money that goes to the Federal Government, and would have economic as well as social policies quite different from those of the red states.

[Grok]

One would suppose that there would be a lot of controversy regarding foreign policy. However, the USA has been drifting into its default mode of Isolationism. The last time around was ended in 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

[crfriend]

Man, you really do have a totally screwed up election system.

It's not the system that's screwed up, it's the way that candidates are selected and the way that campaigns are run. In the situation here, running a campaign costs so much money that the candidates go deeply into hock to moneyed interests who then control them. The net result is that virtually all the candidates (or at a minimum super-majority) are already beholden to the extremely rich. The end result is a one-party system controlled by the oligarchs. It's the classic way to overthrow a republic.

The procedure is entirely open, observable, and accountable -- it's those who are "allowed" (i.e. "enabled") to run that subverts it. The elections are perfectly fair and open -- the problem is that all the contestants are pre-selected.

I don't know if this is right or not but I did read that if Trump doesn't hand over at the appointed time then the VP temporarily becomes the President.

We are in uncharted waters at this time. We've seen one president appointed by the Supreme Court, we've seen other Presidents do things 180 degrees differently than promised during the campaign cycle, We've also seen presidents get impeached over things that in the real world would merely have caused giggles, and witnessed gross miscarriages of justice in the face of overwhelming evidence.

It has become a farce. And not a funny one for those living under the shadow of it.

[Brad]

We've seen one president appointed by the Supreme Court,

This statement is not accurate. The Supreme Court didn't appoint the President. What the Supreme Court did was ruled to stop the recount in Florida. The Supreme Court does not have the power in the Constitution to appoint a president.

For what it's worth, Democrat Sam Tilden won both the electoral and popular votes in 1876 over Republican Rutherford Hayes and still lost! And now Tilden is just a footnote in history with a street and high school in Brooklyn named after him. Some of Tilden's electoral votes were contested which did not give him a plurality. This would normally force the election to the House where each state is given one vote (that's one vote per state, not per representative). Instead the parties came to a compromise- The Democrats would let the Republicans have the presidency in exchange for the Republicans pulling the "carpetbaggers" out of the former Confederate states, which ended Reconstruction. And we know where the end of Reconstruction went- blacks denied the right to vote in those states, Jim Crow laws enacted, lynching of black people, segregation, and other horrible things. All because of a disputed presidential election.

[Grok]

Peter Zeihan (Zeihan.com) has written books about international relations. The material is covered, and often repeated, in his various YouTube videos.

A basic point that Zeihan has made is that the Chinese are upset with the tariffs imposed by Trump, and they figure that the tariffs will be repealed with Trump out of the White House.

Zeihan indicated that he has looked at Biden's online material, and it is clear that Biden is hostile to the Chinese regime.

[Ray]

What point are you trying to make, Grok?

[crfriend]

We've seen one president appointed by the Supreme Court,

This statement is not accurate. The Supreme Court didn't appoint the President. What the Supreme Court did was ruled to stop the recount in Florida. The Supreme Court does not have the power in the Constitution to appoint a president.

The statement was made to point up that a lopsided and ideological (and likely beholden) Supreme Court intervened in a process that should have been allowed to take its course. A bit of hyperbole, perhaps, but we see the end result today -- and have to live with it. What of the next round?

The main thrust of my commentary is that we are now in a deeply post-Constitutional country, and it could go any which way -- entirely likely detrimental to the General Welfare.

The US has had several presidents that lost the general election and yet won the Electoral College. It's time to scrap that relic.

[Big and Bashful]

I thought I had replied to this, oh well, trying again:

Chris thingy: Deserves an award for making it through the whole 90 minutes.

Biden: Quiet, a bit dull, but dignified and looks competant, looks like a realistic option.

Trump: Should be in a padded cell and not allowed to communicate with his adoring sheep.

Next time, please buy Chris an off switch for Trumps mic to stop him interrupting and shouting down anyone who tried to make a point.

Idea for the US- stick a strict age limit into the constitution, nobody over say 50 should be eligible to become the President, stick to people who are young enough to listen and learn. Trump is well beyond that and has proved he listens to nothing but Fox news, Biden to me is still an unknown quantity.