Biden / Trump - Americki izbori 2020

[mackenzie]

5 hours ago, Anonymous said:

Dokaz? 

 

[Moonwalker]

 

Prebacila sam ovo ovde, logicnije je.

 

Sa ovakvom ili onakvom ekonomijom meni uopste nije cudno sto on bas onakav kakav jeste privlaci odredjenu populaciju.  

 

Mislim da tu ima jedan momenat zasto je u svoj svojoj ekspresivnosti privlacan i na drugim geografskim sirinama sa takvim vrednostima iako ekonomski nemaju nista od toga.

 

Evo ima dosta dobra grafika u dnu ovog teksta za Teksas (Profile of a Texas voter) prema raznim kategorijama (tabovi), pa nek svako izvuce zakljucak koji mu/joj se cini najrealniji. Ja znam koji je moj.

 

https://www.click2houston.com/decision-2020/2020/11/05/who-voted-for-trump-who-voted-for-biden-heres-how-the-vote-broke-across-houston-and-texas/

Svakako ovde ima boljih poznavalaca Teksasa, onako sa terena.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Moonwalker

[Joe D]

9 hours ago, ObiW said:

Razlikuje se ali je bolji sistem, nesto izmedju popular vote i winner takes it all. U sustini predlog je da svaka drzava ima sistem kao sto imaju Nebraska i Main. Pobednik u drzavi dobija 2 elektora, pobednici u okruzima dobijaju elektore koje je vecina u tim okruzima izabrala. 

 

 

to onda nije proporcionalno, sto je pejsi napisao.

[zorglub]

7 hours ago, Anonymous said:

Ne znam, meni je sa Obamom deset puta grđe to šta je uradio sa Occupy Wall Street od čitave njegove spoljne politike.

 

Možda jer nisi bio na primajućem kraju te politike, odnosno njenog nastavka.

[Gojko & Stojko]

On 6.11.2020. at 19:00, Партибрејкер said:

U prevodu, ništa te ne sprečava. Jebote, da mi je neko pričao, ne bih verovao. 

 

Treba tamo poslati malog Aleka i 40 razbojnika naprednjaka, za par godina bismo uzeli Australiju bez ispaljenog metka.

Eh, pa nije samo to glasanje bez IDa na poverenje velika razlika u odnosu na US - mene ubija u pojam kad vozim u US pa treba da kupim gorivo što moram prvo da odem unutra i da platim unapred određeni iznos, pa da se vratim i da sipam za toliko (Amerikanci mogu da plate unapred na samom aparatu ali kad si stranac nemaš poštanski kod koji je za to neophodan). Ovde lepo napuniš rezervoar i odeš unutra, eventualno kupiš još nešto i onda platiš, niko ne sumnja da nećeš da platiš. Još jedna stvar koja je jako čudna Amerikancima koji dođu ovde su svuda prisutni (po parkovima i na plažama) roštilji (tj. plotne) na gas koji su besplatni i ljudi ih koriste i uredno očiste. Moja slika u spojleru, i članak iz novina od pre nekoliko godina

 

Spoiler

Why Australia's free barbecues are a national treasure

 

U US (a i u Srbiji) bi dobro došlo da je glasanje obavezno kao ovde ili u Grčkoj, ubeđen sam da ne bi bili toliko podeljeni kao sada jer im je glavni cilj da izvedu što više svojih pristalica na izbore - kad svi izlaze na izbore trudiš se da privučeš i one druge ...

 

On 6.11.2020. at 19:05, iDemo said:

U Kvinslendu su, izgleda, uveli obavezan ID (ima debeo spisak sta to moze da bude) od 2015te...

Samo za lokalne izbore. Kada glasaju na saveznim izborima, ne treba im nikakav ID - pogledaj, ima na kraju teksta na The Conversation koji si linkovao.

 

7 hours ago, ObiW said:

Ma kako da ne. Familija Buš su za Trampa engleski Lordovi lično. Reći za njih da su rasisti, ksenofobi, muški šovinisti i ženomrsci koji su podelili naciju može samo neko ko je jako neobavešten ili jako zlonameran. #nisusvioniisti

Slažem se, a onoliko smo se sukobljavali tamo^tm za vladavine žbunovitog. Lep dodatak na ovo tvoje od prinstonskog filozofa Pitera Singera iz ovdašnjih novina od danas:

 

Has America lost its soul?

As I write, the US presidential election remains undecided. Former Vice-President Joe Biden has said that he believes he is on track to win. President Donald Trump has said, without qualification but also without evidence: “We did win this election”, adding that he will go to the Supreme Court to prevent “a major fraud on our nation”. But in several states, the result will come down to the last few thousand votes to be counted. Recounts are inevitable. If the election ends up in the courts, an official result may still be some days away, as the courts decide whether to exclude some ballots.

 

In his speech at the Democratic National Convention this past August, Biden proclaimed that the election was a “battle for the soul of America”. If we go along with this metaphor, we might conclude that the incomplete election results show that the devil already has a firm grip on a large part of it. Win or lose, Trump will have received the votes of about 70 million American voters. Biden has 73 million, but still, Trump won nearly half of all votes cast.

 

Nor am I letting off the hook those who were eligible to vote but chose not to do so. Given that about 160 million votes were cast, and 239 million Americans were eligible to vote, and generously assuming that five million of those who did not vote were ill or faced other serious obstacles to voting (even by mail!), that adds 74 million Americans whose souls are stained by their failure to care enough about the fate of their country, and of the world, to cast a ballot. It seems, therefore, that for the souls of a total of 144 million Americans, or close to six in every ten eligible voters, the battle has already been lost.

 

Now consider that the election was held at a time when COVID-19 had killed more than 240,000 Americans. That’s more than in any other country, and the United States also has the dubious distinction of a higher death rate per million people than all but six countries (eight if you count tiny San Marino and Andorra). The Washington Post has published a video compilation of Trump saying, on 40 separate occasions, from February until just before the election, that the virus is “going away”.

 

Bob Woodward, one of the most respected journalists in the US, revealed in his book Rage that Trump told him in an interview that he knew from the outset that the virus was much more dangerous than the flu. Publicly, however, he was saying the opposite, thereby undermining the case for strong lockdowns of the kind that, in several other countries, have kept infections and deaths to a small fraction of the rate per million people.

 

For example, in Australia, where I am writing, political leaders of both major parties largely heeded the advice of their chief medical experts. Australia has had 35 deaths per million, compared to 727 per million in the US. Just before the election, Trump’s own scientific adviser was contradicting the president’s remarks that the pandemic would be over soon.

 

Then there were the catastrophic August fires in California and Oregon, which forced the evacuation of nearly a quarter-million people. Scientists said that global warming, by raising temperatures and reducing precipitation, had increased the probability of such fires.

 

That should have provided an ideal background for Biden to convince voters of the need to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions, which are among the world’s highest on a per capita basis.

 

Biden demonstrated his commitment to reducing global warming by appointing Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who had previously championed the Green New Deal, to co-chair his panel on climate policy.

 

He then committed the Democratic Party to a plan to ensure that the US has 100 per cent clean energy and net zero emissions by 2050. Trump’s policy, in contrast, was to embrace fossil fuels and reverse president Barack Obama’s modest steps toward encouraging the use of renewable energy.

 

As if all this wasn’t enough, remember that in 2016 Trump had breached US political custom for presidential candidates by refusing to release his tax returns. Trump managed to keep them largely secret until less than two months before the election, when the New York Times published details showing that in 10 of the last 15 years, Trump paid no income taxes at all, because he reported losing much more money than he had made.

 

In two of the remaining five years, he paid only $750. That information left readers with the choice of believing that Trump was a tax cheat, or that his carefully cultivated image of being a highly successful businessman was false. The Biden campaign gave out bumper stickers reading, “I paid more income taxes than Trump.”

 

To these favourable circumstances for the Democratic Party, we can add Biden’s successful fundraising, which enabled him to outspend Trump on advertising in the final weeks of the campaign.

 

Finally, take into account that Trump is a narcissist, a serial liar, and a man who has been recorded boasting of groping women. In contrast, Biden is a very experienced, middle-of-the-road politician who has been described by 780 retired generals, admirals, and national security officers, in an Open Letter to America, as “above all, a good man with a strong sense of right and wrong".

 

Given all that, Biden should have won in a landslide. Instead, the outcome will be decided by the narrowest of margins in a few states, or in the courts. The election has dashed the hopes of all who thought that American voters would seize the opportunity to repudiate, decisively, a president who has demonstrated zero concern for ethics.

 

My judgment that Trump has no concern for ethics is not an expression of my disagreement with his views. In 2004, I published The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush, explaining where, and why, I disagreed with Bush’s views on fairness in tax policy; abortion and the use of human embryos in medical research; the place of religious faith in political life; his failure to support essential global institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court; and his decisions to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

During the early years of Trump’s presidency, many of my friends asked me if I would write a similar book on the incumbent’s ethics. My reply was that although I strongly disagreed with Bush’s ethics, he did have ethical views worth discussing. Trump does not.

 

Bush’s first primetime televised national address was on the ethics of using human embryos, stored frozen in infertility clinics and unwanted by those from whom the egg and sperm came, to create stem cell lines that scientists believed could lead to treatments for otherwise intractable diseases. It is unimaginable that Trump would do something similar.

 

The only consistent thread in Trump’s opinions on controversial ethical issues is that he supports what enables him to further his ambitions. When, in 1999, he was exploring the possibility of becoming the Reform Party candidate for the presidency, he went on Meet the Press and said, “I am pro-choice in every respect,” even saying he would not ban third-trimester abortions. It was only when he became attracted to the possibility of running for president on the Republican ticket that he announced his opposition to abortion.

 

Likewise, consider the issue of race. Even after the shock of al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Bush never played the race card against Muslims. In contrast, when white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 against the city council’s decision to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, and a participant drove his car into a group of counter-protesters, killing a woman, Trump said there were “fine people on both sides”.

 

In June, Trump had another opportunity to lead when race became the dominant issue in the wake of the videotaped murder of George Floyd, an African-American man, by a white police officer. But Trump made no real attempt to use his position as president to bring the nation together to overcome evident racial injustice. He preferred to use the protests for political gain by falsely claiming that Biden wanted to “defund the police".

 

Trump’s willingness to shift his views as his political advantage dictates has become pervasive in the Republican Party. In terms of shamelessness, Senator Lindsey Graham is hard to beat. In March 2016, when Obama nominated Federal Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland to fill a Supreme Court seat following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Graham opposed filling the vacancy, on the grounds that there was a presidential election that November and the winner should decide who should replace Scalia.

 

To demonstrate that he was acting on principle, he said: “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say ‘Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.’ And you can use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.”

 

Yet when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died shortly before the 2020 election, Graham, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominations, immediately supported Trump’s decision to nominate Amy Coney Barrett.

 

It wasn’t the first time Graham betrayed his own ethical principles. Running against Trump for the Republican nomination, Graham called Trump “a race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot”. He added: “You know how you make America great again? Tell Donald Trump to go to Hell.” Yet, while Graham’s hypocrisy – he is now one of Trump’s most loyal supporters – was well-publicised by his Democratic opponent this year, it did not stop the voters of predominantly Republican South Carolina from re-electing Graham by a comfortable margin

 

You might think that my ethical concerns lack the emotional force that moves most voters. So, my final reason why we should be dismayed that Trump attracted so many votes is a heartbreaking news story that broke two weeks before the election. In 2017, to deter families from seeking asylum in the US, the Trump administration began putting the children into detention camps, separate from their parents.

 

In October, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration had been unable to make contact with the parents of 545 of the children it was detaining. Of these children, 60 were under the age of five when they were taken from their parents. It seems likely that the Trump administration has made them, in effect, orphans.

 

Americans pride themselves on the importance of family life. They gather their families together every November at Thanksgiving, the country’s most distinctive national holiday. If ever there was a story that should have sparked outrage and a demand for change, this was it. But the story appears to have sunk without a trace.

 

If Biden does scrape through to victory, he will have a hard time restoring ethical concerns in a country with so many voters who have become indifferent to the wellbeing of those outside their immediate communities. If, on the other hand, Trump manages to hold on to power, we face four more years in which America comes to reflect more faithlessly the narcissism of its president.

 

SaE

[Gojko & Stojko]

 

Naslovna strana kolumbijskih novina od juče (pita se "Ko je sad banana republika?")

 

 

SaE

[theanswer]

On 3.11.2020. at 17:12, theanswer said:

 

Tramp uzima Floridu, Džordžiju, NC, OH, IA i ne znam dal sam nešto zaboravio. Ajde da mu dam i ME-02. NE-02 ide Bajdenu kao i 3 midwest blue wall države. Uzima i Arizonu. Trampu Teksas. 

 

Senat demokrate gube AL, uzimaju CO, AZ i ME i ništa više. 

 

Ovde se najviše brinem što se predikcije tiče za GA.

 

bump 

 

žalim što nismo pročitalik dragančetovu prognozu kad mi je već tumpsdownovao ovaj post gore

Edited November 7, 2020 by theanswer

[omiljeni]

Pa tako su svi prognozirali, bar ovde na topiću 2-3 forumaša su kačili mape sa prognozom, ali otprilike su tako tipovali da su sve potrevili osim GA

 

[omiljeni]

 

 

kmica rođer je fulio i zonu, a ivo petrović sve tačno osim GA

[3opge]

CNN i dalje onanira na magic wallu iako im je lt. gov. Fetterman upravo rekao da nema nikakve sanse da se ista dobro desi za trumpa u Penn i da bi trebalo da "zovu"

trumpovcima porucio da ne kupuju zelene banane.

[Forest]

9 hours ago, ObiW said:

 

Ma kako da ne. Familija Buš su za Trampa engleski Lordovi lično. Reći za njih da su rasisti, ksenofobi, muški šovinisti i ženomrsci koji su podelili naciju može samo neko ko je jako neobavešten ili jako zlonameran. #nisusvioniisti

 

Buš mlađi* je svojom ukupnom nedostojnošću za mesto predsednika USA bio sjajan kandidat za konstantno brutalno ribanje po iole nezavisnim medijima, sa mnogim argumentima za ismevanje sličnim onima koji su primenjeni u slučaju Trampa, sve sa default slikama majmunolike zbunjene "fool me twice..." face. Čovek koji je bio na čelu sistema koji je dozvolio grupici islamskih fanatika da ih onako unakaze 11. septembra. Dakle, da su mediji hteli da apostrofiraju ovu nedostojnost, na način na koji su apostrofirali Trampovu (očiglednu) nedostojnost - čovek ne bi bio reizabran 2004. godine.

 

To se nije desilo. Dakle, medijima je ta nedostojnost u to vreme bila prihvatljiva. Ako sam danas deo rulje protiv Trampa koja će se pozivati na sve negativnosti tog čoveka, želim da znam na šta stavljam potpis, sa kojim ciljem, i uz kakvu alternativu. U suprotnom, u pitanju je medijska manipulacija, ovaj put "mojih" medija koji se pozivaju na očuvanje "mojih" vrednosti. A na to sam poprilično alergičan.

 

*primećujem nešto fundamentalno nelogično (za kontekst definicije demokratskog sistema) u situaciji da u prethodnih 5 izbora za USA predsednika pre 2020, 3 puta je kandidat za predsednika bio član uže familije prethodnog predsednika, a 2 puta je u tim izborima i takav kandidat postao predsednik. Statistika kaže da je nemoguće da je najbolji kandidat za predsednika u pogledu sposobnosti među milionima potencijalnih kandidata osoba koja slučajno ima člana uže familije koji ima titulu bivšeg predsednika. Dakle, predsednik se birao prema principu pripadnosti dinastiji - a to onda mora da pokrene pitanje koje postavljamo i pred Trampa, pitanje (ne)dostojnosti.

[Ayatollah]

Hajde zovite više izbore, završavajte ovo mučenje. U Pensilvaniji skoro 30 hiljada razlike za Bidena, u Džordžiji 7 hiljada, gotovo je to. Ne znam zašto ne zovu ni druge države, u Severnoj Karolini 76 hiljada razlike za Trampa, a manje 50 hiljada glasova ostalo za brojanje, tu se više ni teoretski ništa ne može desiti.

[copkillah]

 

kad neko krene da se loži da je ovaj bolji od ovog ili onog, opaliti ga ovim po nosu

 

[freakns]

4 minutes ago, copkillah said:

 

kad neko krene da se loži da je ovaj bolji od ovog ili onog, opaliti ga ovim po nosu

 

svakom normalnom je jasno da sustinska razlika izmedju Trumpa i Bidena ne postoji. razlika je samo u formi. a ta forma je ono sto je bitno "centrima moci"

 

zaboga, pa Amerikanci su pre samo 20 i 16 godina 2x u nizu izabrali mongoloida za predsednika i to nikom nije smetalo. pa su 2x za redom izabrali crnca koji je sve samo ne deo potlacene populacije. i onda su izabrali kompletnog ludaka(iskreno, mislim da Trump nije zaista toliki rasista i fasista vec je samo primetio da postoji 70M Amerikanaca koji su rasisti i fasisti... a da je lud, to je vec nepobitno). i to je prvi koji je svima poceo da smeta jer je iskocio iz sablona koji se forsira. u par momenata je cak pomislio da je predsednik

 

od januara se stvari vracaju u normalu, i to je ono sto je svima najvaznije, i DNC i GOP mogu da nastave da voze po svome... a koliko je to vazno se videlo 2016. kada su baba i DNC gore lupali po Sandersu nego po Trumpu, jer Sanders je bio osvedoceni outcast a za ovog su mislili da ce narod da skapira koliko je lud pa ga svakako nece izabrati... 

[Amos]

To, kad uzimaju 1 Buša kao pozitivno brojanje posle 20 godina kao da smo svi živelu u buretu svo ovo vreme.