2020 US General Election Thread VII: Summer of Discontent

[Heloin]

This is a really pissy passive-aggressive way of telling me I'm wrong. You'll never get anywhere with that.

Just make you point.

Umm didn’t you just respond to him by cutely asking if beto ran for senate?

Pots and kettles and all that jazz.

[Uiiop]

Beto's effort was heroic, and the fact that he didn't do it your way (by going Left) should make you think.

He went liberal instead of left and lost. Your point?

Yeah wasn't one of his big things was standard Dem on gun control? That probably as much as a dealbreaker as the other shit. who knows who've run if he took the left wing tack on guns?

[South Odreria 2]

He went liberal instead of left and lost. Your point?

Yeah wasn't one of his big things was standard Dem on gun control? That probably as much as a deal0breaker as the other shit. who knows who've run if he took the left wing tack on guns?

Ya except he was more extreme than pretty much any elected official on guns

[Nobel Hobos 2]

This is a really pissy passive-aggressive way of telling me I'm wrong. You'll never get anywhere with that.

What the fuck are you reading in my post?

Implying I was wrong without saying how. Pissy passive-aggressive time-wasting nonsense. Don't make a habit of it.

Just make you point.

I made my point already. Though I didn't state it directly the idea that Beto lost because he was to "left wing" for Texas runs counter to the point that it was a close election and the next one will probably be even closer if not be a Democrat victory. Texas isn't Florida, a close election isn't expected. But Texas is changing and elections are getting closer.

Four pages ago you made a point. Well pardon me for forgetting it.

So you're asserting that Beto nearly won the Senate seat (it wasn't all that close, but OK) because he was properly left. If he'd just go a bit further left then he'd win. Is that your point?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

He went liberal instead of left and lost. Your point?

Yeah wasn't one of his big things was standard Dem on gun control? That probably as much as a dealbreaker as the other shit. who knows who've run if he took the left wing tack on guns?

I think that's something he'll have to talk back before running for Texas again.

Trying to talk back the extreme statements on guns, which made even Democrats wince, probably isn't possible.

This make Beto O'Rourke's next career step, back to the Texas House. Or he could run for US House.

[Heloin]

What the fuck are you reading in my post?

Implying I was wrong without saying how. Pissy passive-aggressive time-wasting nonsense. Don't make a habit of it.

I'd like to introduce you to my kettle.

I made my point already. Though I didn't state it directly the idea that Beto lost because he was to "left wing" for Texas runs counter to the point that it was a close election and the next one will probably be even closer if not be a Democrat victory. Texas isn't Florida, a close election isn't expected. But Texas is changing and elections are getting closer.

Four pages ago you made a point. Well pardon me for forgetting it.

I made the point on the page right before this one. It's not a point I made three weeks ago, I made the point three hours ago and your the only response to it.

So you're asserting that Beto nearly won the Senate seat (it wasn't all that close, but OK)

It was a close election. I can't for the life of me understand why you could think it isn't.

because he was properly left. If he'd just go a bit further left then he'd win. Is that your point?

No? My point is that acting like he lost for being a Liberal in Texas, or Left Wing as you keep putting it, means he will always lose is not found in reality.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Implying I was wrong without saying how. Pissy passive-aggressive time-wasting nonsense. Don't make a habit of it.

I'd like to introduce you to my kettle.

Four pages ago you made a point. Well pardon me for forgetting it.

I made the point on the page right before this one. It's not a point I made three weeks ago, I made the point three hours ago and your the only response to it.

So you're asserting that Beto nearly won the Senate seat (it wasn't all that close, but OK)

It was a close election. I can't for the life of me understand why you could think it isn't.

because he was properly left. If he'd just go a bit further left then he'd win. Is that your point?

No? My point is that acting like he lost for being a Liberal in Texas, or Left Wing as you keep putting it, means he will always lose is not found in reality.

You're still hedging like crazy to try to avoid making a positive claim. Are you afraid of history proving you wrong?

"He'll win next time". Jeez.

[Heloin]

I'd like to introduce you to my kettle.


I made the point on the page right before this one. It's not a point I made three weeks ago, I made the point three hours ago and your the only response to it.


It was a close election. I can't for the life of me understand why you could think it isn't.


No? My point is that acting like he lost for being a Liberal in Texas, or Left Wing as you keep putting it, means he will always lose is not found in reality.

You're still hedging like crazy to try to avoid making a positive claim. Are you afraid of history proving you wrong?

"He'll win next time". Jeez.

The situation in 2018 was the closest statewide election in Texas in a long while and could have easily shifted to be the first Democrat win statewide since 1994. The previous elections since 94 (with the exception of 2006 but I don't know how to even start with that year) have had strong and mostly overwhelming Republican majorities. Your whole dismissal of Beto as some hopeless case who was never going to win the election is weird when anyone can look up election data from Texas and know that conclusion is just wrong.

Or are you going to call me a passive aggressive prick again and put some words in my mouth? And so you know, this is what being passive aggressive is actually like.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You're still hedging like crazy to try to avoid making a positive claim. Are you afraid of history proving you wrong?

"He'll win next time". Jeez.

The situation in 2018 was the closest statewide election in Texas in a long while and could have easily shifted to be the first Democrat win statewide since 1994. The previous elections since 94 (with the exception of 2006 but I don't know how to even start with that year) have had strong and mostly overwhelming Republican majorities. Your whole dismissal of Beto as some hopeless case who was never going to win the election is weird when anyone can look up election data from Texas and know that conclusion is just wrong.

Or are you going to call me a passive aggressive prick again and put some words in my mouth? And so you know, this is what being passive aggressive is actually like.

I didn't dismiss Beto as a hopeless case. I did however make the claim that he moved left during the Presidential primaries and would struggle to move back to the center.

The last line meant "If you think he has a better chance next time then JUST SAY SO"

But you're not going that far, are you?

[Thermodolia]

You just don't like Beto. If beating a Republican in Texas is so easy, perhaps you should try it.

Beto was certainly the best candidate in 2018 and he could definitely go again in 2024.

The problem is that he said he would take people’s guns away. That killed his campaign. If he had just shut up and not said anything then we would be talking about senator Beto

[Thermodolia]

He may not be a centrist, of course not, but he could be a lot further left and that would be cooler

Okay, so ... acknowledging that the US needs some serious improvement, name a country or two we could be more like.

Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

[Thermodolia]

Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, just to name a country or two

Required to amend constitution:
Switzerland: Referendum, popular majority, plus popular majorities in majority of cantons
Canada: majority in both houses, plus popular majority, with majorities in 2/3 of provinces
Japan: two-thirds of each house, plus popular majority at referendum
Germany: basic rights cannot be struck out, otherwise 2/3 of both houses
Sweden: majority vote in Riksdag (single chamber), intervening election, Riksdag again
Netherlands: majority vote of both houses, intervening election, 2/3 of both houses
Norway: proposed early in term of Storting (single chamber), passed 2/3, signed by the King
New Zealand: only basic electoral matters are protected, mostly amended by Parliament
Denmark: majority vote in Folketing, intervening election, Folketing again, referendum 40%
Finland: no amendment, however laws are permitted in exception to the constitution
Iceland: partly unprotected, but mostly amended as per Sweden

Some of these (eg NZ, Finland) are nearly unprotected, while the Netherlands seems the most robust.

None of them are anywhere near as hard to amend as the US Constitution.

And per some founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson we should have been on a new constitution by now or at the very least not have a system that was super convoluted

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Beto was certainly the best candidate in 2018 and he could definitely go again in 2024.

The problem is that he said he would take people’s guns away. That killed his campaign. If he had just shut up and not said anything then we would be talking about senator Beto

It scared the crap out of Democrats, imagine what it will do to Texans at large!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Required to amend constitution:
Switzerland: Referendum, popular majority, plus popular majorities in majority of cantons
Canada: majority in both houses, plus popular majority, with majorities in 2/3 of provinces
Japan: two-thirds of each house, plus popular majority at referendum
Germany: basic rights cannot be struck out, otherwise 2/3 of both houses
Sweden: majority vote in Riksdag (single chamber), intervening election, Riksdag again
Netherlands: majority vote of both houses, intervening election, 2/3 of both houses
Norway: proposed early in term of Storting (single chamber), passed 2/3, signed by the King
New Zealand: only basic electoral matters are protected, mostly amended by Parliament
Denmark: majority vote in Folketing, intervening election, Folketing again, referendum 40%
Finland: no amendment, however laws are permitted in exception to the constitution
Iceland: partly unprotected, but mostly amended as per Sweden

Some of these (eg NZ, Finland) are nearly unprotected, while the Netherlands seems the most robust.

None of them are anywhere near as hard to amend as the US Constitution.

And per some founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson we should have been on a new constitution by now or at the very least not have a system that was super convoluted

I think I know what you mean by "convoluted". The constitutional provisions have been convoluted by generations of court rulings?

[Thermodolia]

And per some founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson we should have been on a new constitution by now or at the very least not have a system that was super convoluted

I think I know what you mean by "convoluted". The constitutional provisions have been convoluted by generations of court rulings?

Not so much that but that you need some 2/3 of the states to change the constitution. When instead we should have a 2/3 national referendum to change the constitution.

[Gormwood]

100 Days: Trump faces headwinds as Election Day draws near

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I think I know what you mean by "convoluted". The constitutional provisions have been convoluted by generations of court rulings?

Not so much that but that you need some 2/3 of the states to change the constitution. When instead we should have a 2/3 national referendum to change the constitution.

2/3 in referendum is a high enough bar, imo. And to propose amendments? Majority in Congress? Big petition?

(It's 3/4 of states btw)

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Australia requires a majority in both houses of Parliament, followed by a majority vote in referendum, with majorities also in a majority of states (4 of the 6). It's a fairly high bar in practice.

[Thermodolia]

Not so much that but that you need some 2/3 of the states to change the constitution. When instead we should have a 2/3 national referendum to change the constitution.

2/3 in referendum is a high enough bar, imo. And to propose amendments? Majority in Congress? Big petition?

(It's 3/4 of states btw)

Well 3/4 is even worse.

We should have a majority in Congress with a nationwide referendum of 3/5 of the population approving.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

2/3 in referendum is a high enough bar, imo. And to propose amendments? Majority in Congress? Big petition?

(It's 3/4 of states btw)

Well 3/4 is even worse.

We should have a majority in Congress with a nationwide referendum of 3/5 of the population approving.

60% is a good number, I like that. Never going to happen

[San Lumen]

2/3 in referendum is a high enough bar, imo. And to propose amendments? Majority in Congress? Big petition?

(It's 3/4 of states btw)

Well 3/4 is even worse.

We should have a majority in Congress with a nationwide referendum of 3/5 of the population approving.

Amending the constitution is supposed to be difficult. It shouldn’t be something you can do on a whim. There is also no precedent in the United States for a national referendum nor is there any provision in the constitution allowing for one

[Thermodolia]

Well 3/4 is even worse.

We should have a majority in Congress with a nationwide referendum of 3/5 of the population approving.

Amending the constitution is supposed to be difficult. It shouldn’t be something you can do on a whim. There is also no precedent nor provision in the United States for a national referendum.

Not according to Thomas Jefferson who wanted us to change out, or at the very least amend, the constitution every 30 or so years.

And how else are we supposed to fix our problems if we have people like you who say we can’t. Also there wasn’t precedent for giving black people citizenship yet we did that. Maybe we shouldn’t be so hooked on precedent or provision and just do it

[San Lumen]

Amending the constitution is supposed to be difficult. It shouldn’t be something you can do on a whim. There is also no precedent nor provision in the United States for a national referendum.

Not according to Thomas Jefferson who wanted us to change out, or at the very least amend, the constitution every 30 or so years.

And how else are we supposed to fix our problems if we have people like you who say we can’t. Also there wasn’t precedent for giving black people citizenship yet we did that. Maybe we shouldn’t be so hooked on precedent or provision and just do it

We did that via a constitutional amendment

[Thermodolia]

Not according to Thomas Jefferson who wanted us to change out, or at the very least amend, the constitution every 30 or so years.

And how else are we supposed to fix our problems if we have people like you who say we can’t. Also there wasn’t precedent for giving black people citizenship yet we did that. Maybe we shouldn’t be so hooked on precedent or provision and just do it

We did that via a constitutional amendment

But there was no precedent for it. What’s then is stopping a national referendum to help amend the constitution. So we can ensure that rights like the Right to Marry or the Right to one’s body are enshrined in the constitution.

Wouldn’t that be better than a court case or a law both of which can be overturned?

[San Lumen]

We did that via a constitutional amendment

But there was no precedent for it. What’s then is stopping a national referendum to help amend the constitution. So we can ensure that rights like the Right to Marry or the Right to one’s body are enshrined in the constitution.

Wouldn’t that be better than a court case or a law both of which can be overturned?

Yet we passed a constitutional amendment to allow it.

On your question You’d have to somehow prove the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to everyone.