rimshot
Is nothing more sad than a drummer in a suit? Charlie Watts excepted, of course.
rimshot
The lines here on election day were quite long. Everyone seemed very friendly, though, despite the polarizing nature of the WWE.
I've never had to spend more than ~3-4 minutes in-and-out when voting. They always have extra people at desks to help out and supervisors buzzing about making sure things go quickly. and.... the count is usually done by late evening at the latest. It blows minds in multiple countries that the vote/count can be delayed by days or maybe more.Why does it take hours of queueing for some to vote? No wonder 'mail-in' is becoming so popular.
In Australia I am usually done voting within 15 minutes.
Why does it take hours of queueing for some to vote?
Possibly something to do with 25 million people V 323 million in a similar sized spaceWhy does it take hours of queueing for some to vote? No wonder 'mail-in' is becoming so popular.
In Australia I am usually done voting within 15 minutes.
In Australia I am usually done voting within 15 minutes.
In the UK we do not need to show ID. Our elections are concluded within a few hours of the polls' closing and I do not recall any need for the intervention of the courts.
No system is perfect but I suspect that you will have to look further than voter ID for the source of the imperfections.
Zero disagreement there.If you listen to a range of international commentary there is genuine surprise that Trump has fielded so much of the vote.
Possibly something to do with 25 million people V 323 million in a similar sized space
Per capita the schools, halls and pubic buildings are probably similar. These are more likely available here as we vote on Saturdays.
I have read that some US States make in-person voting difficult for some.
Well he is not the first politician to emit a populist message, so I think people outside the US can understand that and its appeal to a certain demographic.Zero disagreement there.
But the high likelihood that there will be a significant number of people from the US even on this forum that would not find it surprising and possibly surprised/unhappy he didn't get more is a dynamic that would be very difficult (if not impossible) for people from outside the US to understand. I don't mean that in any negative way.
I have read that some US States make in-person voting difficult for some.
That is the extent to which people understand anywhere. But it is much more than garden-variety demagoguery.Well he is not the first politician to emit a populist message, so I think people outside the US can understand that and its appeal to a certain demographic.
In most places in the world, behavior that would be political suicide as being outside the "norms" and therefore self-limiting, has been proven to be not so here. And you are justifiably surprised by that.I think the reason why people outside the US find Trumps success surprising is the reality that his behaviour is so "un statesmanlike". Every time he opens his mouth there is a circus coming out. He simply says things that are demonstrably untrue/incorrect. All politicians do this to a degree, bend the truth,, lie by omission, but its so overt with Trump it beggars belief. The more he does so the more it devalues anything he does and it actually damages "brand America" around the world. Thats not specifically my opinion BTW, thats an amalgam of things that I hear listening to international political commentary.
That is the extent to which people understand anywhere. But it is much more than garden-variety demagoguery.
In most places in the world, behavior that would be political suicide as being outside the "norms" and therefore self-limiting, has been proven to be not so here. And you are justifiably surprised by that.
The simple answer is there has been no penalty for doing that.
I am saying to understand why there has been no penalty in the US for doing that (and one may even argue rewards for doing so) requires an understanding of the identity politics dynamics in the US based on a history that is quite unique. People outside can only judge it within their own experience and expectations of behavior and so this would be surprising.
Trump just pushes it to as much as he can get away with and it has been surprising to even some in the US as to lack of any repercussions of breaking all so-called norms and traditions and to what an extent he has been able to push it without losing votes.
The big learning from a historical perspective from this era will be the realization of how fragile a Democracy really is when it is held-together so much simply by social conventions of norms and traditions rather than rules that have prescribed penalties.
Agreed, but has he now reached that limit? I think so.
Will we see another Trump-esq president? I dont think so.
Agreed, but has he now reached that limit? I think so.
Will we see another Trump-esq president? I dont think so.
Actually this point was discussed on several occasions on the programs I have been listening to. Im trying to keep this less about my views and more of an "overview". How many presidents who have lost an election have come back to win another? Most commentators thought his return was extremely unlikely. Also does it not depend to an extent on how successful the next President is considered over the next term?In the short-term perhaps if he loses this election. But he will be back in 2024 and will be very active until then as long as he is healthy to do so (and not as some hope/believe in prison).
The underlying support and tolerance for it has not gone away one bit. The results of this election has maintained if not actually strengthened it's viability if you look at the results below the President selection.
Actually this point was discussed on several occasions on the programs I have been listening to. Im trying to keep this less about my views and more of an "overview". How many presidents who have lost an election have come back to win another? Most commentators thought his return was extremely unlikely. Also does it not depend to an extent on how successful the next President is considered over the next term?
One question, how stong do you view the competition, the other candidate, to be in this election?
I am responding here as a political observer not as a "party member". I am a "The Economist"-style fiscal conservative, social liberal that doesn't fit either party. So, no vested interest in being for or against any party. Just my independent observations and analysis.Actually this point was discussed on several occasions on the programs I have been listening to. Im trying to keep this less about my views and more of an "overview".
None that I know of but two things: 1. Most Presidents at least in modern history who lost after one-term haven't wished to run again and 2. None of the past or norms apply to Trump. So, it is entirely up to him if he wants to run and he can win.How many presidents who have lost an election have come back to win another? Most commentators thought his return was extremely unlikely.
Depends on what success is. If the Senate majority stays with the Republicans ( as it is expected to barring two huge upsets in the Georgia run-offs in early January), they won't let a Democratic President do anything. They know how to fight (dirty if necessary) and win. Democrats only know how to hold hands and sing Kumbaya in a gun fight let alone bring even a knife. The Senate Democratic Party leader Chuck Schumer should be spending time playing Bocce ball somewhere in NY. He is so unfit to achieve anything that requires anything stronger than a strong tsk, tsk at the Republicans and throwing up hands saying there is only so much he can do.Also does it not depend to an extent on how successful the next President is considered over the next term?
One question, how stong do you view the competition, the other candidate, to be in this election?