Perfect.
No, I agree McConnell might be lawful evil. But Adolf was not - perhaps neutral evil, probably chaotic evil. Nothing lawful about burning Parliament.
What the fuck does he expect to accomplish by doing that? There still needs to be a transition.
This provides some context. This was a telegraphed move and was coming no matter which way the election went.
I think this might be a good debate for IMHO. (I don’t think it is a Great Debate but that’s just me.)
Applying to run for President of Russia (based on Putin’s recent announcement).
Didn’t they make the same request of SCOTUS a week ago (and get shut down)?
The eight that existed then on the court were evenly split, so the lower court’s ruling stood but was not confirmed and thus is not precedent to be cited against a new case being brought saying the exact same thing before a court with different membership.
A nurse friend on my Facebook said that, and mentioned the 17 new COVID-19 patients she had. Then a dozen more.
You Tube algorithm suggested " You’re so Vain" I’m pretty sure that is a MAJOR CONSPIRACY PROOF and couldn’t possibly be organic based on SEARCHES.
I’ve said this before, but I’ll bet if jotted down the names of everyone (media personalities or friends) that said this would all go away on November 3rd, those same people will transition to it all being Biden’s fault within days of the inauguration. Many of them will probably make a pit stop at ‘it’ll all be over on January 20th’.
Oh no, we have now seen that in America we have no less than 70 Millions racists or idiots.
Appalling. And true.
Ok, yep.
I must be rather stupid because I don’t know what this means.
YouTube Algorithm suggested " You’re so Vain" ?
To whom? Why? Why is this important or interesting?
“I’m pretty sure that is a MAJOR CONSPIRACY PROOF” What is? The algorithm? The song? What is MAJOR CONSPIRACY PROOF?
“and couldn’t possibly be organic based on SEARCHES”
What does this even mean?
Maybe this was accidently posted in the wrong thread? It makes as much sense as “The Elephant Has Escaped the Circus”.
If you trace back, this started with “I’m Canadian and I’m pretty sure faithless electors are impossible here”.
I’m pretty sure faithless electors are possible in Australia, and I question that it’s impossible in Canada.
And the subject is “faithless” bozos – so yes, Vince Gair was a bozo from a coalition state, and he was appointed on a technicality from a ‘conservative’ government, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible for other labour party members to do the same kind of thing, after they are elected. if you look at UK history, you see plenty of people changing sides, and being derided for doing so, and even now, would you like to rely on Adem Somyurek for Dan Andrews in a critical vote?
I think that the situation in the US is so fundamentally different to Westminster systems that you can’t really make the comparison, yes. I had to look up Vince Gair - that is very much before my time, not to mention away from my geography - and I can’t say that I understand it entirely, but it sounds like ordinary backstabby politics, rather than the sort of democratively-destructive act an American faithless elector situation would be.
The crucial thing that keeps Westminster politicians in check is that they all have to answer to an actual electorate at some point - generally speaking people only pull really dirty tricks if their career is in deep trouble already and they no longer care. US presidential Electors are already party apparatchiks and don’t have to face a voter in their life - that makes them much less easy to hold to account.
The closest thing Australian politics ever got to the sort of thing we’re talking about in America was probably the Dismissal … but even there, the electorate had some recourse, they could have voted Labor straight back in if they wanted to. They didn’t - c’est la vie. I don’t think simple prime minister change is in the same league.
Biden’s speaking. He sounds tired. I’m not sure why they have him on at this late hour. Better to have him up early for a soundbite for the morning news.
“Faithless electors” ARE actually impossible in NZs electoral system (sort of),.
We have a proportional parliamentary system. Half of our MPs are electorate (represent a district) and the rest are “party”.
Party MPs are chosen to bring parliament to the same proportion (of each party) as votes received in the election (i.e - if the Labour Party gets 45% of the vote, they will have 45% of the MPs in Parliament)
If a “party” MP is expelled from the party, they also lose their parliamentary seat. (“electorate” MPs have greater protection though)
I’m not sure why there is a need to hijack this thread with the distracting discussion of NZ/Aussie parliamentary systems. Those posts just make this one harder to follow. Maybe starting a separate thread on the topic would make more sense.