• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

2020 US Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
@ NajaB

A December 2016 survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 34 percent of respondents in the government-controlled Ukraine regarded the change in power in February 2014 as an "illegal armed coup", while 56 percent regarded it as a "popular revolution". Note that the area of the government-controlled Ukraine excludes the Crimea (now part of Russia) and the Donbass region, which is under the control of separatists, where I suspect that nearly 100% of inhabitants would regard the events of February 2014 as the violent overthrow of the legitimate Ukrainian government.
There's a certain smack of "I did all my research. I read all the links on the qanon homepage and everything" about that. Apart from anything it involves a wilful misinterpretation of "revolution" and "illegal transfer of power", which isn't what it means.

None of it moves an inch from the fact that Trump encouraged an armed insurrection where people died, in an attempt to prevent an indisputably democratic transfer of power. It's not the time for semantic word games, it's the time for prison.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,544
But it had been decided on by elected representatives. The ruling in Roe v Wade was that the law that the Texas legislature had passed and was on the books violated constitutionally protected rights. This is no different to the UK system where courts can rule on conflicts and contradictions in laws enacted by Parliament.

If another legislature wants to they are free to enact a new law prohibiting abortion and have it tested for constitutionality by the courts. Alternatively, if any State legislature wants to, it can propose a constitutional amendment that would make anti-abortion laws compatible with the constitution.
Due to the 1973 ruling by unelected supreme court judges, it is impossible for the elected texas congress to make anti abortion laws that comply with the constitution.

It is similarly impossible for the federal congress to do so.

The only way to do so is for the supreme court to overturn the 1973 ruling or for the constitution to be changed (2/3 majority in both houses plus states agree).

In contrast, and especially since 31st December 2020; anything that the UK "supreme" court rules on can be overturned by a primary act of parliament with a simple majority plus parliament act to override the lords. As we have often seen, primary acts can be passed in a few days.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
Trump has awakened a lot of misinformed radicals with irrational promises (lies). It is not going to be easy at all to diffuse that.
But the most interesting thing about this whole saga is that the most fervent Trump supporters could hardly be called "radical" in the traditional sense of the word. They look like a homeschooling evangelical family of ten from states like Kentucky and Ohio - quite the opposite of the "usual" radicals!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
In contrast, and especially since 31st December 2020; anything that the UK "supreme" court rules on can be overturned by a primary act of parliament with a simple majority plus parliament act to override the lords.
Which is antithetical to the US concept of three co-equal branches of government.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,544
Which is antithetical to the US concept of three co-equal branches of government.
Indeed, but it also makes it very very difficult to implement big reforms which can cause all sorts of problems (including a civil war in the 19th century and numerous gun massacres in recent years). Elsewhere such constitutional barriers have resulted in revolution.

The UK constitutionless system basically offers the possibility of a democratic revolution every 5 years, which lances the boil and is probably why we haven't had an actual revolution since the 1600s.
 

RichT54

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2018
Messages
420
But the most interesting thing about this whole saga is that the most fervent Trump supporters could hardly be called "radical" in the traditional sense of the word. They look like a homeschooling evangelical family of ten from states like Kentucky and Ohio - quite the opposite of the "usual" radicals!

Most people have issues that upset them. Trump's main ability is get people to focus on those issues, to exaggerate them and then point them at another group (immigrants, minorities, Muslims, liberals, etc) and say "these are the people that are causing your problems, they are taking what rightfully belongs to you"! It's a very old trick, but it's what he has excelled at and it worked.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
But the most interesting thing about this whole saga is that the most fervent Trump supporters could hardly be called "radical" in the traditional sense of the word. They look like a homeschooling evangelical family of ten from states like Kentucky and Ohio - quite the opposite of the "usual" radicals!
How would you characterise the "usual" radicals? It seems to be all sorts of completely different people take radical positions, or slip into radical attitudes, at different times.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
Not sure if this is the right thread, but I was just reading this BBC article and I found it a little racist. Unlike many other people I don't have many problems with the BBC and I think their reporting is usually good and honest, but I felt this article crossed a line - especially with the diagram of white men being highlighted in black and white. If it was the other way round it would be unacceptable, so I wonder what anyone thinks of this?

 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
If it was the other way round it would be unacceptable, so I wonder what anyone thinks of this?
If you're trying to highlight the diversity in the cabinet, what more simple and effective way do you propose to visually distinguish between "old white men" and not?
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
If you're trying to highlight the diversity in the cabinet, what more simple and effective way do you propose to visually distinguish between "old white men" and not?
I'd personally say that the red boxes around the pictures are more than sufficient. It's not that I disagree with the article, but rather the way that it seems to say that having "old white men" is a particularly bad thing. I also don't really understand why Pete Buttigieg is seperated from the other white men simply because he is part of the LGBT community - some of the others might be too, just that they haven't made it public...
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
I also don't really understand why Pete Buttigieg is seperated from the other white men simply because he is part of the LGBT community - some of the others might be too, just that they haven't made it public...
That's the point - he's openly gay. That's still a big thing as far as US politics goes. For example, there are 9 openly-gay incumbent House members out of 538, statistically that means there are more who are closeted than open.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
I'd personally say that the red boxes around the pictures are more than sufficient. It's not that I disagree with the article, but rather the way that it seems to say that having "old white men" is a particularly bad thing. I also don't really understand why Pete Buttigieg is seperated from the other white men simply because he is part of the LGBT community - some of the others might be too, just that they haven't made it public...
I'm not sure the closeted LGBT members would particularly appreciate the BBC revealing their secrets with a red box tbh
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
It's not that I disagree with the article, but rather the way that it seems to say that having "old white men" is a particularly bad thing.
The issue is that many past president's cabinets have been almost exclusively "old white men" - at least in the positions of actual power.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,024
Location
SE London
Not sure if this is the right thread, but I was just reading this BBC article and I found it a little racist. Unlike many other people I don't have many problems with the BBC and I think their reporting is usually good and honest, but I felt this article crossed a line - especially with the diagram of white men being highlighted in black and white. If it was the other way round it would be unacceptable, so I wonder what anyone thinks of this?


Interesting. I suspect from this and some of your previous posts I come from a similar perspective to you, to the extent that I also generally think quite highly of the BBC. But since the BLM movement arrived, to my mind, much of the BBC's reporting specifically of race relations has been inaccurate, too accepting of unsubstantiated claims by anti-racism/BLM campaigners, and has bordered on anti-white racism at times. A strange blot on an otherwise pretty good reporting record. However, having said all that, I can't see anything wrong with this particular article. The way the pictures are highlighted seems justified by the particular circumstances - that it's drawing attention to the representation of groups that previously have been under-represented or completely unrepresented. It's not unusual in graphs etc. to highlight things you particularly want highlighted, and I'd view the black-and-white vs. colour pictures in that context.

There is a tricky conflict - on the one hand you want people to be treated equally and respected equally, irrespective of their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or any other similar characteristic, and you don't want people favoured or promoted just because of the colour of their skin. But on the other hand it would seem a cause for celebration when groups who have been badly represented in the past (blacks, women, latinos, etc.) secure adequate representation at the highest levels of Government for the first time. There's a bit of a contradiction between those two ideals, and to my mind that article has struck a good balance.
 

hst43102

Member
Joined
28 May 2019
Messages
945
Location
Tyneside
The issue is that many past president's cabinets have been almost exclusively "old white men" - at least in the positions of actual power.
The article goes through all the previous cabinets back to Clinton - and, apart from Trump's majority white male cabinet, all of them have been more than 50% minority/women groups.
There is a tricky conflict - on the one hand you want people to be treated equally and respected equally, irrespective of their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or any other similar characteristic, and you don't want people favoured or promoted just because of the colour of their skin. But on the other hand it would seem a cause for celebration when groups who have been badly represented in the past (blacks, women, latinos, etc.) secure adequate representation at the highest levels of Government for the first time. There's a bit of a contradiction between those two ideals, and to my mind that article has struck a good balance.
Good point. I would personally like to see more celebration of minorities in government than making it seem like a it's a requirement to accurately represent every group in society. By that reckoning, someone of east asian heritage like myself could never get onto into the cabinet as less than 1/12 of the population is made up of east asians. Obviously that's just a generalisation, but my point is that you don't necessarily need to have a completely representative government to have them representing people. I would feel much more represented by a old black woman who shares my beliefs and values than a young asian male who has opposing viewpoints, but I might be in the minority with this view!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
The article goes through all the previous cabinets back to Clinton - and, apart from Trump's majority white male cabinet, all of them have been more than 50% minority/women groups.
Hence why I specifically said that it's about positions of actual power.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,486
Location
Kent
There's a bit of a contradiction between those two ideals, and to my mind that article has struck a good balance.
I had an initial concern but, on reflection, I have more a problem with what they have reported rather than how they have reported it. Assuming "progressive liberals" means more than a bunch of hothead motormouths, they need to realise that the battle they are fighting is the battle for 2024. They will not have much opportunity to do more than steady the ship for the next couple of years. What is needed is some safe pairs of hands. A quick calculation for the Trump era shows that about 2 people occupied each cabinet office over the four years on average, for the second Obama term (not illustrated) it was more than one and a half - there will be time for others, of different minorities, to make their mark. Vilsack has done the Agriculture job before, not everyone agrees with his policies but he can be left to do it for a couple of years - maybe this has already been agreed; Lloyd Austin will have built up knowledge of how the Pentagon works, no need for a newcomer to bed in; Janet Yellen - what the economy needs is someone who will have the background, and she has that. Biden knows that these, and others, will be able to get on with the job while he concentrates on more pressing matters. If the Democrats lose in 2024, the cabinet is likely to be only a little more colourful than 2016.

Regarding presentation - I see no problem with the approach. It is not always possible to identify whether someone is from an under-represented group - certainly not LGBT+or with disabilities. and, in some cases, not ethnicity so the use of colour/ greyscale was fine and easy to follow for comparison.

I would feel much more represented by a old black woman who shares my beliefs and values than a young asian male who has opposing viewpoints, but I might be in the minority with this view!
As an old white man, I can think of a stackload of women (not all white) leading other countries who I was rather occupied No. 10 than the current incumbent, who doesn't represent my views one tiny little bit - so not a minority viewpoint as far as I am concerned.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,383
Location
The UK
Donny just talks drivel, he is the sort of person who tries to argue that it is 'day' when it is quite obviously 'night', he makes George W. seem like Einstein, so will be very easy to caricature - the late night chat shows will love him. I've heard an interview with Mary Trump - she reckons he is the most stupid.
Donald Trump Jr. consistently manages the impossible task of being the most stupid person called Donald Trump in the world.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,536
Location
Redcar
As the election is now over we're drawing the thread to a close here thank you all for your many contributions! If you wish to discuss the Biden Presidency itself then we do currently have a thread which you can find here. For the continuing legal fallout of the election being faced by Trump's allies and quite likely Donny T himself you can use the dedicated thread we have on that here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top