eclipse Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 But I thought various provisions of this law expired in 2015. Or are you talking about the USA Freedom Act which is slightly different? It's in response to the quote that Republicans won't vote for something that'll take away rights. Granted, it was a reactionary bill, but it goes to show that it's not entirely impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Trump wants to adjust the libel laws so they're more in line with the U.K. libel laws; in extremely simplified terms, it is much easier to prove libel in the U.K. because it is up to the defendant to prove what they alleged is 100% correct and truthful, and intent and malice do not play a significant part in the judgment. "But that doesn't sound so bad!" you say. "People should always be correct and truthful!" As we all know Trump isn't the champion of fact-checking, truthfulness, and whatnot: he will use it to go after the reporters who say mean stuff about him like he did in the past, only if they actually touch the libel laws in such a way he will be able to exact his revenge on said reporters much more easily. It will be a way for him to ruin his political opponents. If his supporters cared about the First Amendment just as much as they care about the Second Amendment, they would decry it if Trump does indeed move in this direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ema Skye Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Can we talk about a different issue here that I find very concerning? According to the numbers I can find, only 53% of registered Americans voted. Is this normal for you guys? This legitimately concerns me that nearly half of Americans did not want to express their opinion. Clinton won the popular vote by 0.1%. If you guys used that system, she'd be president and the race would have been so much closer. But either way, given how close several of the states were, I think it's important to emphasize that your vote does matter and it is your responsibility (not right) to exercise your voice in the political process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Yes, voter turnout (especially among young people) is an issue here. It also varies by state - I believe the number for Maryland was 75-80% (which I believe included absentees, since I had to send one). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Can we talk about a different issue here that I find very concerning? According to the numbers I can find, only 53% of registered Americans voted. Is this normal for you guys? This legitimately concerns me that nearly half of Americans did not want to express their opinion. Clinton won the popular vote by 0.1%. If you guys used that system, she'd be president and the race would have been so much closer. But either way, given how close several of the states were, I think it's important to emphasize that your vote does matter and it is your responsibility (not right) to exercise your voice in the political process. This is par for the course for Hawaii. Even when Obama was on the ballot, we didn't break 70%. Ah, well. At least I can say I did my civic duty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Hillary will win the popular vote, meaning more people who have voted wanted her to be president. But given we know how our electoral college works and people still decided not to show up for whatever reason I can't be very sympathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 It was actually 63%; of 200,081,377 registered voters, 125,457,004 people voted. Which isn't a bad turnout, and pretty par for the course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just call me AL Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 The Electoral College system is pretty outdated, IMO. Seeing as it's how Bush of all candidates got into the White House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 (edited) It's not only outdated but it causes campaign pocketing. Trump would never have campaigned in California just as Clinton would never touch Texas. They go after the swing states. EDIT: also the electoral college has twice in the past 20 years led to some Simpsons Paradox bullshit going down. Edited November 9, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Can we talk about a different issue here that I find very concerning? According to the numbers I can find, only 53% of registered Americans voted. Is this normal for you guys? This legitimately concerns me that nearly half of Americans did not want to express their opinion. That number is gonna be even lower when you consider the eligible voters that have not even registered. (This site indicates only 67% of eligible were registered. I have not fact-checked it, but the number sounds believable.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 (edited) I wouldn't put much stock into moderate republicans blocking Trump's policies. Before Trump won, the party was desperate, divided, thinking they'd lost their chances to get the white house, then Trump actually got it with them also getting more seats in both houses than anyone expected. Trump probably has a lot of power right now and i don't think many republicans would be willing to go against him and the base he managed to energize as opposed to the republican establishment. I think the houses will only start barring his proposed legislature if/when his government starts to fail. Edited November 9, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 and numbers were on average up by 5%! voting on tuesdays with no holiday tells people they shouldnt be voting. it has to change, no matter who a person supports. there is something to be hopeful about. an anti-establisment moron won. americans are very obviously completely fed up with politicians. there's hope for a populist progressive movement yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Water Mage Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 Here's in Brazil, voting is obligatory. It's against the law not to vote. I wonder if that would work in the US? And it's true that they vote in paper in the US? Why not use voting machines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 I actually prefer the paper methods just because after being a cashier for 7+ years I've developed a hatred for the unreliability of touchscreens. I'd prefer just to mark it and be done with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted November 9, 2016 Share Posted November 9, 2016 (edited) edit: fucking mobile lying to me Edited November 10, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) Some places uses voting machines, others don't. Believe it or not, some of the voting machines are really outdated, and nobody gives a shit about them because they're used once every two years. It completely depends on the district anyway. Some states (like Maryland, I'll keep fellating Maryland as long as I live) give you your absentees online and require a mail-in vote. Some states mail you the ballet and require you to mail-in your vote right back (and often times the ballot is received on election day, by which time it is too late, even though they're the ones that registered way earlier than everyone else). I think our voting system is too fragmented to really rely on a state-dependent electoral college. On top of the clusterfuck in 2000. Can you imagine an Al Gore-led United States? EDIT: the best part about election day being a Holiday would've been that I didn't have to teach last night or on Friday due to Veteran's Day and those are my two days that I TA ayyyyyyyyy Edited November 10, 2016 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Water Mage Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I actually prefer the paper methods just because after being a cashier for 7+ years I've developed a hatred for the unreliability of touchscreens. I'd prefer just to mark it and be done with it. Voting Machines don't use touchscreen. They use buttons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNLEASH IT Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) I still don't understand how she lost Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and even Iowa, states that Obama won by a very large margin in both 2008 and 2012. These states are what cost her the election in the end. Edited November 10, 2016 by UNLEASH IT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 That number is gonna be even lower when you consider the eligible voters that have not even registered. (This site indicates only 67% of eligible were registered. I have not fact-checked it, but the number sounds believable.) According to Politico, there are now over 200,000,000 registered voters in the US, and your link lists 218,000,000 as being eligible to vote. there is something to be hopeful about. an anti-establisment moron won. americans are very obviously completely fed up with politicians. there's hope for a populist progressive movement yet. It's the most realistically optimistic thing I've heard yet... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) Yours may. EDIT: for some reason this computer isn't letting me quote or use multi-quote ugh Edited November 10, 2016 by Crysta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 (edited) Here's in Brazil, voting is obligatory. It's against the law not to vote. I wonder if that would work in the US? And it's true that they vote in paper in the US? Why not use voting machines? Voting is mandatory yet we still have a lot of abstencion. Last regional election we had a 33% abstencion + spoiled ballot rate, with abstencion being the majority of those. Then there's the fact many consider mandatory voting not democratic. I think that it's not a nice thing. The problem is that it's relatively hard to vote in the us, and then there's the fact voting takes place in a week day, and you also have alleged voters supression. I think voting should be as easy as possible, but not mandatory Edited November 10, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Water Mage Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 Some places uses voting machines, others don't. Believe it or not, some of the voting machines are really outdated, and nobody gives a shit about them because they're used once every two years.It completely depends on the district anyway. Some states (like Maryland, I'll keep fellating Maryland as long as I live) give you your absentees online and require a mail-in vote. Some states mail you the ballet and require you to mail-in your vote right back (and often times the ballot is received on election day, by which time it is too late, even though they're the ones that registered way earlier than everyone else).I think our voting system is too fragmented to really rely on a state-dependent electoral college. On top of the clusterfuck in 2000. Can you imagine an Al Gore-led United States? Is it really that hard to maintain them? Even if it's once in two years, it's for elections. Which is kinda of important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I still don't understand how she lost Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and even Iowa, states that Obama won by a very large margin in both 2008 and 2012. These states are what cost her the election in the end.Low black voter turnout is the only theory I can entertain for Michigan and PA. Those two and New Hampshire would've tied it. It's the most realistically optimistic thing I've heard yet...senpai i said something like this earlier (among other things) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 senpai i said something like this earlier (among other things) Whoops, I must've missed it. Sorry about that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dayni Posted November 10, 2016 Share Posted November 10, 2016 I still don't understand how she lost Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and even Iowa, states that Obama won by a very large margin in both 2008 and 2012. These states are what cost her the election in the end. From what I can tell, many of those states are in the Rust Belt, which would have at least some people disenfranchised, on top of Hillary herself not really looking like she'd improve the lot of a lot of people in terms of the economy to be honest. Looking at this from the outside (Lookit, some fuuriner who don't know where all the states are in order :P), so take that with a grain of salt as an opinion based on observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.