exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes I know. Your Supreme Chicken, I mean Court, has not done the country too many favours recently.
Presidential predictions for 2024?
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
- Status
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I was wondering if there might be more compromise and transparency, especially in systems with multiple parties.
What would be better would be to not have an electoral college in the first place. It would also be better if the Constitution was easier to amend to keep up with changing times. It shouldn't be too easy to amend but our system is at the other extreme. It's too hard to amend.What may be better would be a move to the electoral college votes being awarded on a proportional basis in all states. That would be a good start, imo.Or even the electoral college being awarded on the basis of the national popular vote. If states with 270 electoral votes signed up to and enacted that, then the President would be elected on the popular vote from then on.
Ours has become a broken system in that it's almost impossible to reform anything. I just wondered if a Parliamentary system might be more transparent, have more compromise inherent and be more flexible. It was a question and not a statement.
The issue in the US is not the system of government you have, but rather that it is a 2-party system that is now widely apart from the centre. There is little common ground that both parties are willing to take. So when the likes of Trump, not even a member of the legislative branch but simply the cult-leader, wants to stop the progress of anything that makes the other side look remotely competent, then nothing gets done.
Reform should, by its very nature, be something that is supported by more than just one party, and should be a popular position. Ideally also not just for the now but the future as well. I think once Trump is forgotten, and maybe after another election cycle or two, the sides will naturally gravitate toward each other and more common-sense will prevail. And reforms might be easier.
I think what I'm trying to say is that it's not the type of government system you have (although there are undoubtedly issues with all forms) but simply with the players in charge, and the cultish nature of one party, at this particular moment. It's not a broken system per se, just one with a flat tyre.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
However the debt issue isn't particularly related to the Trump cult. It predates it.The issue in the US is not the system of government you have, but rather that it is a 2-party system that is now widely apart from the centre. There is little common ground that both parties are willing to take. So when the likes of Trump, not even a member of the legislative branch but simply the cult-leader, wants to stop the progress of anything that makes the other side look remotely competent, then nothing gets done.
Reform should, by its very nature, be something that is supported by more than just one party, and should be a popular position. Ideally also not just for the now but the future as well. I think once Trump is forgotten, and maybe after another election cycle or two, the sides will naturally gravitate toward each other and more common-sense will prevail. And reforms might be easier.
I think what I'm trying to say is that it's not the type of government system you have (although there are undoubtedly issues with all forms) but simply with the players in charge, and the cultish nature of one party, at this particular moment. It's not a broken system per se, just one with a flat tyre.
Sure - but my point is that the system of government won't alter that. It will just change the way you authorise its increase, or work to reduce it. Any decision made won't (as far as I can tell) be any more or less transparent. It won't be any more or less the right thing to do (whatever it is that is ultimately approved). It won't change what your politicians want to do with the debt.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The debt issue is about economic health which in reality is about everything else.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
If communism were the form of government that would change things would it not?
California has a constitution that is fairly easy to amend. As a result, it is now almost indecipherable, with 523 amendments so far. Some of the amendments contradict other parts of the constitution.
The federal Constitution now has 27 amendments, which seems a lot more manageable.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Yes, you can't go to either extreme. It would be helpful, don't you think, if the 2nd amendment was changed to allow for more nuance and it would be helpful if we were able to have campaign finance reform without running into a Citizen's United situation.
Or do you disagree?
Yes, I think it would. However, I am also hesitant to allow transient passions power over the Constitution. It SHOULD be very hard to do, even if I would prefer some things be easier.
Keep in mind that if we make it easier to change the 2nd we also make it easier to change the 1st. And with someone like Trump in charge, I could see a populist movement to (for example) make it OK for the federal government to support Christianity. Just for very narrow reasons of course! Like the Ten Commandments in schools! Nothing more than that.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I agree, there is room for abuse under any system. I'm just pointing out that our Constitution is unusually and comparatively hard to change. It's at the point where it's possible for "big money" to tie the system up. We can't regulate guns at all, we can't get drug addicts off the streets, we can't have reasonable campaign reform.
The Supreme Court is "corrupted" at this point. Congress didn't serve as a check on a crazy President (Trump) at all. The debt is insane and it's because the debt is largely hidden. There is little transparency in Congress. All the decisions are done in committee and even there it's mainly done by the chairman so it's ripe for corruption. Members vote on bills never having even read the bill or had time to read it.
As they say, sometimes an open book is an empty book. There is a balance between having rights and having no control over anything. There is a balance between ensuring protection of a minority and letting a minority take over the majority.
The Electoral College sees that most of us don't really have a vote that counts. All that counts are about 7 swing states. Trump was elected without the popular vote. Every major city is the US is taken down (to an extent) by people living on the streets and by people committing crimes and just being released because it isn't fair (due to micro-aggressions) to lock them up so the crime continues.
The system is on a path toward not working.
Not reallly, no. Debt is the result of policies, not the form of government. Communism, while being a form of government, is also about the ideology, and those economic policies.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Harris is going to win. Nothing more to discuss there.
There's the outside chance that Trump isn't on the ticket come November. His revent "interview" with Musk - in which Musk initially lied about a DoD attack that he claimed was the cause of an issue that delayed proceedings (one of his staff said it's 99% sure that Musk lied about it) - was not great, from what I hear, with "Dentures" being one of the top trending words. Trump could barely pronounce a word without it sounding like he simply hadn't put his dentures in. Which is not a great sound, even before you start trying to make sense of what he's actually saying.Harris is going to win. Nothing more to discuss there.
I got some flak a couple of pages back for my Mad Magazine foldover-style rephrasing of some of JD Mandel's bullshit. In my defense, there's this:
“I remember when I had just been announced as the VP nominee, I gave my big speech and I saw my wife and I gave her a big hug and a kiss because I love my wife. And I think that’s what a normal person does,” Vance told CNN in an interview that aired Sunday.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
So, in Mandel's own words, he kisses his wife because that's we he thinks a "normal person" does. Mic drop.
Edit: OK, the late, great Al Jaffee referred to them a fold-ins, not fold-overs, so I shall honor his wishes.
“I remember when I had just been announced as the VP nominee, I gave my big speech and I saw my wife and I gave her a big hug and a kiss because I love my wife. And I think that’s what a normal person does,” Vance told CNN in an interview that aired Sunday.
JD Vance reveals the moment he knew Tim Walz was the 'weird' one, says... - The Times of India
US News: JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential nominee fired back at Kamala Harris’s running mate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz over calling GOP ticket ‘wei.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
So, in Mandel's own words, he kisses his wife because that's we he thinks a "normal person" does. Mic drop.
Edit: OK, the late, great Al Jaffee referred to them a fold-ins, not fold-overs, so I shall honor his wishes.
Last edited:
Speaking of, why does Mandel (JD) wear eyeliner? It doesn't suit him, not that anything would really, but still.
- Status