The Trump Presidency

[gillianren]

Everyone's showing it as too close to call; Politico still thinks Biden has more paths to victory than Trump.  But it absolutely should not be this close; it should have been a foregone conclusion that no one would want a second term.

[LunarOrbit]

There should be an investigation into how the USPS handled their role.

USPS failed to deliver 27 percent of mail-in ballots in South Florida: report

[Ranb]

Trump is likely to win GA, NC and PA.  If he also gets WI or MI, he wins.  I think Biden is more likely to be elected.  This is based upon CNN's estimates.

[LunarOrbit]

There are apparently a lot of mail-in ballots to be counted in PA, and that might favor Biden since Trump, the stable genius that he is, discouraged his supporters from mailing in their ballots. So we will see.

[LionKing]

Do you have an idea by when the final results will be out?

[JayUtah]

The final projections should be complete by the end of the week.  But because there's a "safe harbor" law to allow for the inevitable disputes that will arise in various states, the final result won't be assured until Dec. 8, the deadline for slating the electors.

[JayUtah]

The presumption has been that the mail-in and absentee ballots will skew heavily toward Biden.  We saw some evidence of that in Wisconsin and Michigan.  I'm hoping that when they're finally counted, not only will Biden have won but the difference in the popular vote won't be so depressing.  This should have been a landslide.  If people cared at all about leadership and representative government, this should have been a landslide.

[Obviousman]

It shouldn't be close.  I literally do not understand people who can look at [gestures vaguely] and say, "Yes, this is how I want my country to look."  Or all those people who somehow believe the current administration has done the best they can with the pandemic, which is one of the most demonstrably untrue things ever.

I couldn't agree more. I simply do not understand: this man (and I use the term loosely) is an openly admitted misogynist, bigot, racist, narcissist and possibly the biggest liar in US political history.... and people still want him?

[LunarOrbit]

this man (and I use the term loosely) is an openly admitted misogynist, bigot, racist, narcissist and possibly the biggest liar in US political history.... and people still want him?

And on top of that (as if that wasn't enough) he doesn't do anything. He has spent over a year of his term in office playing golf. Anyone else (with the exception of professional golfers) would be fired from their job if they slacked off at work that much. And every time he visits one of his properties the taxpayers have to pay HIM to provide accommodations for his Secret Service protection and other aides. He is a government employee who is stealing from you. Fire him.

I will never understand why people like him. He has zero redeeming qualities.

[mako88sb]

Was just reading a Quora post by a lawyer who brought up some points about how long Trump could legally drag this out if he loses. The guy is talking about months possibly and I could certainly see Trump doing everything to win because if Obama got 2 terms, then he sure as hell should get 2 terms as well. Here’s a link to the post. I don’t know how accurate his info is as well as his reasoning for what could happen but it’s pretty troubling to say the least that it could happen:
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-Donald-Trump-lost-and-refused-to-concede-the-election

[Ranb]

I couldn't agree more. I simply do not understand: this man (and I use the term loosely) is an openly admitted misogynist, bigot, racist, narcissist and possibly the biggest liar in US political history.... and people still want him?

Who do you think is voting for him?  It is the misogynists, bigots, racists, narcissists and liars who are in his corner.  I'm certain that many for them wish they could assault women as a perk of wealth, take credit for anything they want while denying responsibility for everything and run away from their debts.  You know, the scum of the country.

[Von_Smith]

As usual, Gillianren's contributions are right on point.

Agreed.  It's almost like she's smart and knowledgeable or something.

The worst form of originalism is intentionalism, which presumes not just to be able to determine what words meant in 1790, but what certain men might have intended in 1790, whether they externalized those thoughts or not.  Imagine having the final say in a capital case, but you base your decision on what you guess people originally intended who lived long ago in a different place.  This is the worst case of government by men and not by laws.  So originalists try very hard not to delve into original intent because of the inherent subjectivity.  This is why they draw a bright line cutting off anything that didn't actually make it into the text of the Constitution.  Everything else is, according to them, and improper attempt to infer intent.

Another problem, I think, with "intentionalism" or other forms of "strict construction" is that laws are all too often written vaguely on purpose to placate different factions.  So not infrequently the law's "intent" is to be as vague as possible while still seeming to say something that enough people want.  Such laws *have* to be interpreted, sometimes creatively, to be anything at all.

ETA [edited because I didn't like the word "aggressively" for what I had in mind]

Also, AIUI, saying that people don't have rights unless they are *explicitly* enumerated in the US Constitution contradicts the Ninth Amendment.

[LionKing]

The final projections should be complete by the end of the week.  But because there's a "safe harbor" law to allow for the inevitable disputes that will arise in various states, the final result won't be assured until Dec. 8, the deadline for slating the electors.

Pheww..that's a long time

[Allan F]

I understand that your method of electing a president funnels you into a two-party system.

Where I live, anybody can start a new party, collect supporters (usually by having people sign up in the streets) and present a certain number of written endorsements. It's not exactly like that, dunno the exact lingo, but if enough people will put their name on "I think this party might be a good idea"-paper, then that person can run for the danish parlament. The backers don't have to vote for this party or pay a fee to this party. They just have to say "I think this party should be allowed to be on the ballot for the next election".

Then that party must acheive at least 2% of the votes to actually get a seat (two seats, since there are 179 seats in total). This system ensures there's a wide number of parties to represent the citizens. After the election, the Queen appoints a Royal Negotiator, usually the foreperson of the largest party, who then attempts to form a government with 90 members of parliament behind it. By negotiating with other parties, promising ministery posts and changes to laws in exchange for votes in the parliament, the Royal Negotiator hopefully reaches a solution which can then be presented to the Queen. The Prime Minister usually is the foreperson of the largest party in the coalition of parties working together.

That way, small parties with only a few seats in the parliament can effect significant influence, by "selling" its votes to the coalition which offers the most in return.

[JayUtah]

Negotiation and consensus was a large part of how the U.S. Senate was originally supposed to operate.  You needed supermajorities to get anything of consequence accomplished.  Now instead we have Mitch McConnell ruling over the body from an office that's nowhere named in the Constitution, having eroded all semblance of cooperation and decorum.