US presidential election 2020:Winner?

[Jimbeaux]

Vanden Saab said:

Actually that is a little unfair. Following our actual leaving of the EU and the resounding win by Boris things are much better here. Although I can understand your view from the USA as there is a very small group of people supported by parts of their media still making a lot of noise and giving the impression that the vast majority have not moved on...

You are correct there. However, despite his resounding victory, is not the divide and meanness between the parties still rife? As in warring tribes? I could be very wrong.

[Jimbeaux]

kowalski655 said:

DNC superdelegates have openly said they would vote against Bernie, even if he had most votes.
Yay democracy!

Here is more on that. If Bernie collects more primary delegates than his opponents, but less than a 50% majority of all primary delegates, the Super delegates can change their votes. If he manages to reach 50%, they have to vote along with that.
These rules were changed in 2016 after Sanders was shafted in just that fashion. Bottom line; The new rules make it harder for him to get “DNCed” again, but Sanders needs to accumulate 50% of primary delegates to make it through.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/...

[ZX10R NIN]

Laughed out loud when I read that, due to the fact they don't see the irony in the fact that they're called the Democratic Party but are doing the exact opposite you could almost call it a socialist move!!!

[DeltonaS]

JagLover said:

DeltonaS said:

Seven aircraft carriers floating around the place but just paying for and setting up a decent functioning healthcare system, seen as a basic need and foundation of society in any other developed first world country's, seems a bridge too far.

and what do you think helps underpin the peace and stability needed for a functioning global economy that then pays for all the goodies desired by the left?

I know the U.S. is very partisan, but it's not about left or right. So IMO the "goodies desired by the left" comment is a strange one, I think that whether your left or right your health is probably the most important thing.

The U.S. spends more on the military than the next 7 or 10 (depending on the source) countries combined, 36% of what the entire world spends.
According to Business Insider the U.S. has even 19 aircraft carriers (including 10 massive ones), compared to 12 operated by other countries.

Talking about priorities.

[_dobbo_]

Someone who has benefited from the NHS their entire life calling Medicare for all "goodies" is a particularly PH comment.

[JagLover]

DeltonaS said:

JagLover said:

DeltonaS said:

Seven aircraft carriers floating around the place but just paying for and setting up a decent functioning healthcare system, seen as a basic need and foundation of society in any other developed first world country's, seems a bridge too far.

and what do you think helps underpin the peace and stability needed for a functioning global economy that then pays for all the goodies desired by the left?

I know the U.S. is very partisan, but it's not about left or right. So IMO the "goodies desired by the left" comment is a strange one, I think that whether your left or right your health is probably the most important thing.

The U.S. spends more on the military than the next 7 or 10 (depending on the source) countries combined, 36% of what the entire world spends.
According to Business Insider the U.S. has even 19 aircraft carriers (including 10 massive ones), compared to 12 operated by other countries.

Talking about priorities.

I referenced "goodies desired by the left" as the left seem to be under the misconception that the world would be a better place if the likes of Iran, China and Russia were left free to do as they will. The world under the Pax Americana might be an imperfect one but it sure beats the world of the 1930s.

As for comparisons with other countries that is rather misleading as it does not reflect the limited regional nature of the power they project, lower salaries for personnel and often disguised spending (re China).

See this article for details on that

https://chinapower.csis.org/military-spending/

[Jimbeaux]

DeltonaS said:

I know the U.S. is very partisan, but it's not about left or right. So IMO the "goodies desired by the left" comment is a strange one, I think that whether your left or right your health is probably the most important thing.

The U.S. spends more on the military than the next 7 or 10 (depending on the source) countries combined, 36% of what the entire world spends.
According to Business Insider the U.S. has even 19 aircraft carriers (including 10 massive ones), compared to 12 operated by other countries.

Talking about priorities.

19 carriers? I am pretty sure it’s 11; where are we hiding the other 8?
Let me help you with that. The U.S. has 11 of the 20 in the world. The other 9 are scattered amongst other nations.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 28th February 18:14

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 28th February 18:17

[Fittster]

Jimbeaux said:

DeltonaS said:

I know the U.S. is very partisan, but it's not about left or right. So IMO the "goodies desired by the left" comment is a strange one, I think that whether your left or right your health is probably the most important thing.

The U.S. spends more on the military than the next 7 or 10 (depending on the source) countries combined, 36% of what the entire world spends.
According to Business Insider the U.S. has even 19 aircraft carriers (including 10 massive ones), compared to 12 operated by other countries.

Talking about priorities.

19 carriers? I am pretty sure it’s 11; where are we hiding the other 8?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 28th February 18:14

Looks a bit like something a plane could lane on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibiou...

One of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphib...

few of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraf...

If you are a poor person in the third world having a large bomb dropped on your head, the exact terminology for the boat where the bomb started its journey problem isn't that big a deal.

[Jimbeaux]

Fittster said:

Jimbeaux said:

DeltonaS said:

I know the U.S. is very partisan, but it's not about left or right. So IMO the "goodies desired by the left" comment is a strange one, I think that whether your left or right your health is probably the most important thing.

The U.S. spends more on the military than the next 7 or 10 (depending on the source) countries combined, 36% of what the entire world spends.
According to Business Insider the U.S. has even 19 aircraft carriers (including 10 massive ones), compared to 12 operated by other countries.

Talking about priorities.

19 carriers? I am pretty sure it’s 11; where are we hiding the other 8?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 28th February 18:14

Looks a bit like something a plane could lane on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibiou...

One of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphib...

few of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraf...

If you are a poor person in the third world having a large bomb dropped on your head, the exact terminology for the boat where the bomb started its journey problem isn't that big a deal.

Well I suppose those ships do have helicopters and maybe a vertical lift plane or two. Not technically "Aircraft Carriers" but OK.

[Jimbeaux]

Fittster said:

If you are in the third world having a large bomb dropped on your head, the exact terminology for the boat where the bomb started its journey problem isn't that big a deal.

I sincerely doubt we will be dropping a bomb on London's East End anytime soon.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 28th February 20:06

[Jimbeaux]

Super Tuesday's winner will go a long way to telling us who will be the Dem nominee, and these two states will go a long way in telling us who wins Super Tuesday:

"Decisive wins for a single candidate in California and Texas -- states which will award more than 600 of the 1,991 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination -- could change the tenor of a race that has at times seemed headed for a protracted fight."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/super-tues...

[Jimbeaux]

Dem megadonors want a moderate candidate; they are afraid of Sanders. They deem his (and Warren's) plans too extreme.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/democratic...

[NoNeed]

AW111 said:

Jimbeaux said:

hidetheelephants said:

The Deep State will confect a CORVID19 outbreak, Bernie will catch it and die/end up on life support/be isolated for the duration in the same dungeon that Podesta and Clinton held their satanic child abuse rituals.

/Tinfoilhat.

Mercy; sounds like an Ed Wood movie.

Or a standard post from NoNeed.

Sounds right

[geeman237]

I live in South Carolina and tomorrow I can place my vote for a Democrat leader. I became a US citizen in 2012 so 2020 will be my second Presidential election as a voter. Now, I’m not that politically savvy I will admit, so I stand to be corrected here. The vote tomorrow is only about a Democrat leader but all those registered can vote. So, as I think I understand it Republicans can all go out and vote for any of the Dem nominees. Surely this potentially means they could really put the cat among the pigeons and “sabotage” a strong Democrat leadership challenge by their voting of a weak candidate?
Trump was at a rally in Charleston SC tonight. The local news were all over it. A reporter interviewed a working class/blue collar looking middle aged chap waiting to see Trump’s address in the crowd that couldn’t get into the building. The reporter asked what was the man most looking forward to hearing Trump say. The man said something like “he can say anything he likes, I’ll be entertained, I love the man to death”
I think it’s fair to say Trump will win again....

[Jimbeaux]

geeman237 said:

I live in South Carolina and tomorrow I can place my vote for a Democrat leader. I became a US citizen in 2012 so 2020 will be my second Presidential election as a voter. Now, I’m not that politically savvy I will admit, so I stand to be corrected here. The vote tomorrow is only about a Democrat leader but all those registered can vote. So, as I think I understand it Republicans can all go out and vote for any of the Dem nominees. Surely this potentially means they could really put the cat among the pigeons and “sabotage” a strong Democrat leadership challenge by their voting of a weak candidate?
Trump was at a rally in Charleston SC tonight. The local news were all over it. A reporter interviewed a working class/blue collar looking middle aged chap waiting to see Trump’s address in the crowd that couldn’t get into the building. The reporter asked what was the man most looking forward to hearing Trump say. The man said something like “he can say anything he likes, I’ll be entertained, I love the man to death”
I think it’s fair to say Trump will win again....

In some states’ primaries, one must vote for the party they are registered to. Some states do not and people can vote as they please. In the general election, party affiliation does not restrict voters, they can vote for whomever they like. These are called “swing voters” and often decide elections.

[Ridgemont]

geeman237 said:

I live in South Carolina and tomorrow I can place my vote for a Democrat leader. I became a US citizen in 2012 so 2020 will be my second Presidential election as a voter. Now, I’m not that politically savvy I will admit, so I stand to be corrected here. The vote tomorrow is only about a Democrat leader but all those registered can vote. So, as I think I understand it Republicans can all go out and vote for any of the Dem nominees. Surely this potentially means they could really put the cat among the pigeons and “sabotage” a strong Democrat leadership challenge by their voting of a weak candidate?
Trump was at a rally in Charleston SC tonight. The local news were all over it. A reporter interviewed a working class/blue collar looking middle aged chap waiting to see Trump’s address in the crowd that couldn’t get into the building. The reporter asked what was the man most looking forward to hearing Trump say. The man said something like “he can say anything he likes, I’ll be entertained, I love the man to death”
I think it’s fair to say Trump will win again....

Especially if the opposition candidate is more unelectable than McGovern.

It’s a bit like watching the U.K. labour race with Long-Bailey convinced if you offer more of what made voters vote for Boris last time around somehow everything will be alright. Dur.

[jimmyjimjim]

Jimbeaux said:

In some states’ primaries, one must vote for the party they are registered to. Some states do not and people can vote as they please. In the general election, party affiliation does not restrict voters, they can vote for whomever they like. These are called “swing voters” and often decide elections.

In Colorado, a registered democrat or republican can vote in their respective parties primaries. A registered undecided voter can vote in one or the other primary.

[jimmyjimjim]

geeman237 said:

So, as I think I understand it Republicans can all go out and vote for any of the Dem nominees. Surely this potentially means they could really put the cat among the pigeons and “sabotage” a strong Democrat leadership challenge by their voting of a weak candidate?

It's a bit like spending 3 quid to select Corbyn.

[Jimbeaux]

jimmyjimjim said:

In Colorado, a registered democrat or republican can vote in their respective parties primaries. A registered undecided voter can vote in one or the other primary.

Yes, but in the main general election, they can vote either way.

[AW111]

Given that parties as such didn't exist when the US electoral system was drawn up, when did this "register as Republican / Democrat / Whatever" become a thing in the US?

I'm not talking about being a member of a political party, but about declaring your nominal affiliation as a "registered voter".

Do any other countries have similar?