2020 US Election (Part One)

[Arwon]

I find it curious that in your home nation (Australia) and mine (Canada), which are based on the Westminster tradition, that the Deputy Prime Minister, who stands in for temporary absences of the Prime Minister, does not take over - not even necessarily as interim PM - if the PM dies, resigns, or is forced out in the middle of a Parliament (that is, between elections).

What do you mean? That does happen. It just depends on what the majority party (well, technically, parliament as a whole) decides to do - often that involves selecting someone else for factional or coalition reasons.

 

[Patine]

What do you mean? That does happen. It just depends on what the majority party (well, technically, parliament as a whole) decides to do - often that involves selecting someone else for factional or coalition reasons.

I'm referring to the position of Deputy PM not being truly analogous to VP when the PM is permanently out of office before an election - they only seem to fill temporary absences. This is something I've seen people mistaken on by mere assumption.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The thing about insults, or digs, or any kind of political grandstanding that involves taking shots at competitors or opponents, is of course they can also be factual. But them being factual doesn't negate them being used as vilification (which was the entire point, given the timings of the speech, in addition to it being a break from character in the primaries so far).

Insofar as using a "red scare" attack, anything that involves presenting socialism in a negative light is that. It's exactly that. The GOP will use anything against any Democratic candidate - when people are criticising Biden's coherency? It's because the GOP will use that. Maybe the argument should be why offering up a socialist candidate as a label is better or worse than offering up someone who's coming across worse in a number of videos (in fairness, one of which I've seen edited, but a whole lot more I've seen haven't been) in terms of mental acumen and focus. Physical health is a big difference from mental health (I mean, in an ideal world, they'd all be taken as parts of a whole, but that's Another Derail and I don't want to inflict that on the thread. For better or worse, they're seen as disparate states and often attacked separately, or used in separate attacks).

"socialism ~= communism" is absolutely the problem here, as well as mainstream Democrats (not just Biden) playing up its weaknesses in general. We have that here too in the UK, when by comparison our centre-left candidate (who's more left-oriented than Sanders) barely qualifies as centre-left in a lot of European countries. For you, this means that Biden is a better chance, and he might well be for this election. But that association needs to be broken - that's one of my central political beliefs in general. We have to remove the overtly conservative stigma around socialism as a concept and a label, and sure, like you said, that's going to take time. The problem here is twofold. Firstly, we're arguably running out of time. Secondly, increasing amounts of younger generations are becoming more educated about it, and "waiting for everyone too firmly rooted in bias to die off" isn't really a feasible proposition. Moreso when you consider the fact that young people raised in conservative (or outright right-wing) families will also be growing up with bias inherited from their parents. It's not as simple as waiting for it to die out, and any educational reform in the States is going to come up against the entire problem that is the label in the first place. The dice are stacked against socialism, in a time when the failings of capitalism even in obvious examples like the poverty line, or the hourly wage rate, are becoming increasingly more obvious. Something needs to change. Maybe it isn't the United States of Socialist America, but hey. We can't keep on as we are.

It's very hard to accept a multi-generational educational plan when education is one of the hardest things to actually enact positive change for. Something else needs to be done, arguably, which is why you see people getting into politics on these more leftist platforms (and again: only really very mildly leftist given the American skew on such labels).

r.e. the revolt of the youth. I didn't specify revolt. Any number of things could happen, from the gradual failings of real-life systems to an accelerated rate of pandemic events (not necessarily viral / bacterial, but localised / regional economic collapse, increasing precariousness for small and middle business chains, etc). It's a nebulous future, but the key thing I keep seeing is waiting for it to happen is really becoming an increasingly difficult thing to palette. I'm pretty young, but I'm not young anymore. I'm 30; I've had children. To me thinking 10 or 20 years in the future is natural, and having lived through what I have, and seeing how these things are getting worse? "wait and see" is advice I find increasingly difficult to heed. I'm increasingly sympathetic to the need for radical change; perhaps you're not. Perhaps you are, but have accepted a longer timeline. I don't want to assume.

1973 is a long time ago now. A lot of things have changed, a lot of previously-considered fact has been superceded. I really urge you to listen to the guy on the street corner, because even if every time so far the theoretical hasn't happened, it only needs to happen once. That's the problem with these kinds of theoretical situations, and the rationale about considering them dismissable (to whatever mild extent you are). It's not a matter of deciding who was right after the fact. It's dealing with the reality we find ourselves in. I don't care who's right. I don't even want to be right. I just want to see everything done by the people who have the power to do so to stop it. I'm not seeing that, on either side of the Atlantic, on any of the subjects I care about (which is, in general: minority rights, fossil fuels, climate change and labour law).

Thank you for providing good conversation. Usually I'm more interested in trading barbs and other (probably less productive) pursuits, but I really am in the mood for this and I'm enjoying it.

So again I'm going to summarize a couple points, hopefully with some degree of accuracy. The stuff I am not addressing is not being left out because I am not giving it merit, I'm just trying to stay somewhat focused.

Point one- Biden did criticize his opponents and just because the criticism is (apparently) true doesn't mean it is any less a vilification strategy.

I agree with this in principle. But in practice I return to something I just said in response to someone else. "You've only been a medium sized city mayor and that's a big step up away from president of the US" and "ya got the brain rot ya drooling old codger" are not really equals on the vilification scale. That isn't based on where one or the other place on some 'scale of objective truth.' Are the GOP going to try to use "Biden is mentally unfit"? To a degree. Is it likely to be as effective as "Sanders is a socialist"? Almost certainly not. If my candidate's opponent tries to spring "Biden is mentally unfit" there is a near certain result that the room will erupt in laughter...not at the idea that Biden is mentally unfit, but at the irony of a GOP candidate letting those words out of their mouth.

Point two- the changing view of the youthful revolution that age brings.

You and I are products of two different youth movements. I am not dismissing yours. I think you are not realizing that even though I see them as absolutely equivalent in structure they are, in fact, vastly different in basis. As a youngster my world gave me very little indication that we were in danger of consuming it into uninhabitability. Frankly, I grew up on 'consume freely since this place is gonna get blown the hell up any time now.' I was ready to revolt if only the slightly older than me youth movement screaming for "peace or else" had given it a go. Instead they took an electoral drubbing and disappeared into cracks with their tails between their legs.

When I was "no longer young" and thirty with kids I considered my chances of actually living to a natural demise without getting blown up to be better a little bit, but still far from likely. I now consider them to be pretty good but only because that natural demise is just not that far away as to seem out of reach any more. Keeping from getting blown up has in fact been my 'life's work' if I can be said to have had one, and I say that with satisfaction having gotten this far with it and seeing a pretty good likelihood that I will make it to the end (and not because I think the chances of getting blown up have descended to negligible). Just like the "electoral process is failing" perspectives embraced by the current youth, your own urgency and degree of despair is familiar to me. Not consuming the planet into uninhabitability, I trust, will be your life's work...and I trust that when you are my age you will be able to consider it a job well done as much as I do with mine.

What I suggest that you look forward to learning is this:

Striving for "that's done, we are never gonna blow ourselves up" was absolutely futile. Taking satisfaction in "okay, we didn't blow ourselves up today" is the only path that kept me sane and possibly happy at the same time. If you don't apply a similar thinking you are gonna be miserable whether your crisis is really the one or not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm referring to the position of Deputy PM not being truly analogous to VP when the PM is permanently out of office before an election - they only seem to fill temporary absences. This is something I've seen people mistaken on by mere assumption.

This is pretty much intuitively obvious and results very simply from the US having only the regularly scheduled elections.

 

[Patine]

This is pretty much intuitively obvious and results very simply from the US having only the regularly scheduled elections.

Although, maybe the possibility of ad hoc elections (outside California, Alaska, and Wisconsin at the State level) would keep elected officials in the U.S. more honest and accountable, and less complacent.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Although, maybe the possibility of ad hoc elections (outside California, Alaska, and Wisconsin at the State level) would keep elected officials in the U.S. more honest and accountable, and less complacent.

No question whatsoever. More ambitious use of the recall options that you are referring to could very well make a difference. Unfortunately, in the two out of three cases you mention that I am familiar with "turned out to be a waste of time and public funds" is about all that can be said about them.

 

[Gorbles]

Thank you for providing good conversation. Usually I'm more interested in trading barbs and other (probably less productive) pursuits, but I really am in the mood for this and I'm enjoying it.

So again I'm going to summarize a couple points, hopefully with some degree of accuracy. The stuff I am not addressing is not being left out because I am not giving it merit, I'm just trying to stay somewhat focused.

Point one- Biden did criticize his opponents and just because the criticism is (apparently) true doesn't mean it is any less a vilification strategy.

I agree with this in principle. But in practice I return to something I just said in response to someone else. "You've only been a medium sized city mayor and that's a big step up away from president of the US" and "ya got the brain rot ya drooling old codger" are not really equals on the vilification scale. That isn't based on where one or the other place on some 'scale of objective truth.' Are the GOP going to try to use "Biden is mentally unfit"? To a degree. Is it likely to be as effective as "Sanders is a socialist"? Almost certainly not. If my candidate's opponent tries to spring "Biden is mentally unfit" there is a near certain result that the room will erupt in laughter...not at the idea that Biden is mentally unfit, but at the irony of a GOP candidate letting those words out of their mouth.

Point two- the changing view of the youthful revolution that age brings.

You and I are products of two different youth movements. I am not dismissing yours. I think you are not realizing that even though I see them as absolutely equivalent in structure they are, in fact, vastly different in basis. As a youngster my world gave me very little indication that we were in danger of consuming it into uninhabitability. Frankly, I grew up on 'consume freely since this place is gonna get blown the hell up any time now.' I was ready to revolt if only the slightly older than me youth movement screaming for "peace or else" had given it a go. Instead they took an electoral drubbing and disappeared into cracks with their tails between their legs.

When I was "no longer young" and thirty with kids I considered my chances of actually living to a natural demise without getting blown up to be better a little bit, but still far from likely. I now consider them to be pretty good but only because that natural demise is just not that far away as to seem out of reach any more. Keeping from getting blown up has in fact been my 'life's work' if I can be said to have had one, and I say that with satisfaction having gotten this far with it and seeing a pretty good likelihood that I will make it to the end (and not because I think the chances of getting blown up have descended to negligible). Just like the "electoral process is failing" perspectives embraced by the current youth, your own urgency and degree of despair is familiar to me. Not consuming the planet into uninhabitability, I trust, will be your life's work...and I trust that when you are my age you will be able to consider it a job well done as much as I do with mine.

What I suggest that you look forward to learning is this:

Striving for "that's done, we are never gonna blow ourselves up" was absolutely futile. Taking satisfaction in "okay, we didn't blow ourselves up today" is the only path that kept me sane and possibly happy at the same time. If you don't apply a similar thinking you are gonna be miserable whether your crisis is really the one or not.

Going to minimise for the sake of convenience too, the same disclaimers apply. I've definitely appreciated this as well

1. If I see Sanders, or his (direct) team using that kind of language, I'd agree wholehearted. I'm a Brit, so maybe I missed something obvious, but has he? I sincerely think - and if you're anywhere near close to this to be in a position to make local change, nevermind greater-scale change, I really want you to consider - that the GOP will go in harder on this than you believe. Ironic? Absolutely. Hypocritical, even? Definitely. But their playbook doesn't care for that anymore. Much like how the Brexit discussion went down in both regional and national terms in the UK, hypocrisy matters incredibly little to a base like Trump's. The media cycle being owned by billionaire sociopaths doesn't help this either, everything is pushed harder and faster than ever before. People were burned out on Brexit way before anything actually happened with Brexit. And that was the point.

I mean, Clinton's emails are a great example of this. You're going to see that this time around, but more of it. Because it worked, and the world is four more years Online than it was, and the parts that aren't online have had their media channels saturated with more of the same in the same way.

2. I take a lot of things day by day, hah. It's a coping mechanism for various personal issues, nevermind the world at large. I appreciate the advice because it's always good to be reminded of what I have (especially as I'm about to transition from just-about-getting-by to pretty well off, rather immediately). But I can't stop thinking about the future, even the near future. I can't really explain this without sounding like a pretentious twit, but my brain works fast. Too fast! I cycle fast on the bad and dumb thoughts as much as I do the good and constructive thoughts. And that also risks ruining good thoughts simply by overthinking. But that's how I am. It's partly how I throw out giant walls of text seemingly on a whim, and also why I edit them repetitively for about 2 to 10 minutes afterwards depending on how long they turn out.

What I am doing now, what I am arguing with all the things I argue, is a part of trying to not consume the planet into unhabitability. But that also comes with the dual goal of bringing people forwards with me into that future, and not just my immediate family. I support minority rights because I cannot consider them a consequence, or casualty, in reducing consumption, for example (purely on an economic argument, but naturally my morals play a large factor in this). Perhaps a large amount of why I write so much is projection to make up for a lack of physical activism. Heaven knows I want to, but I have a family that I cannot afford to expose to the consequences of real-life activism, and I'm only just getting to the point where we have any amount of financial security (and don't get me wrong, I'm not poor in the way I see poverty. I'm not well off, but there's a huge nebulous gap between poor and well-off that is so hard to define these days. I'm still effectively working paycheck to paycheck, for example, and I have little to no financial backup if it goes wrong for me).

It's why I like to support candidates like Sanders (and like Warren, to a varying extent). To me they do represent real positive change, and I feel like I've been frustrated by the argument of electability for the past . . . six years or so? Most of what I'd consider my adult life (insert the appropriate emoji for me being legally an adult at 18. Legally, yes. In any other respect, hah. I've met teenagers and young adults with far more seriousness and knowledge than I ever did at that age, since). It frustrates me that it comes down to "socialism" being a scare word, or Biden being a safer option (though there a fascinating breakdown about PoC voters and why they'd vote for Biden; there's been an article or two about it but I don't have them to hand), because I see the same discussions played out in the UK. I see cultural exports - particularly online - of American conservatism making their way over the UK and establishing The Discourse along similarly frustrating lines.

Just a whole lot of frustration from me, really. I just have the privilege of being able to express it better than others at times, which is in no small part why I do. I'm being serious about privilege, too. For a personal example, my wife has severe anxiety and has been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD. I can explain some things better than she will ever be able to do to strangers. Sometimes the same principles apply online. I can get on my proverbial high horse because I'm not a marginalised minority, and because my life isn't in immediate danger (barring the usual frailties of the human body).

My proverbial high horse here is: please listen to more than just the dregs of the Internet when it comes to Sanders. It's very easy to get drawn into it (for anybody, really). I was linked to this Twitter thread today, if there was ever a recommendation from me to read a Twitter thread, this would be it.

 

[Zardnaar]

Going to minimise for the sake of convenience too, the same disclaimers apply. I've definitely appreciated this as well

1. If I see Sanders, or his (direct) team using that kind of language, I'd agree wholehearted. I'm a Brit, so maybe I missed something obvious, but has he? I sincerely think - and if you're anywhere near close to this to be in a position to make local change, nevermind greater-scale change, I really want you to consider - that the GOP will go in harder on this than you believe. Ironic? Absolutely. Hypocritical, even? Definitely. But their playbook doesn't care for that anymore. Much like how the Brexit discussion went down in both regional and national terms in the UK, hypocrisy matters incredibly little to a base like Trump's. The media cycle being owned by billionaire sociopaths doesn't help this either, everything is pushed harder and faster than ever before. People were burned out on Brexit way before anything actually happened with Brexit. And that was the point.

I mean, Clinton's emails are a great example of this. You're going to see that this time around, but more of it. Because it worked, and the world is four more years Online than it was, and the parts that aren't online have had their media channels saturated with more of the same in the same way.

2. I take a lot of things day by day, hah. It's a coping mechanism for various personal issues, nevermind the world at large. I appreciate the advice because it's always good to be reminded of what I have (especially as I'm about to transition from just-about-getting-by to pretty well off, rather immediately). But I can't stop thinking about the future, even the near future. I can't really explain this without sounding like a pretentious twit, but my brain works fast. Too fast! I cycle fast on the bad and dumb thoughts as much as I do the good and constructive thoughts. And that also risks ruining good thoughts simply by overthinking. But that's how I am. It's partly how I throw out giant walls of text seemingly on a whim, and also why I edit them repetitively for about 2 to 10 minutes afterwards depending on how long they turn out.

What I am doing now, what I am arguing with all the things I argue, is a part of trying to not consume the planet into unhabitability. But that also comes with the dual goal of bringing people forwards with me into that future, and not just my immediate family. I support minority rights because I cannot consider them a consequence, or casualty, in reducing consumption, for example (purely on an economic argument, but naturally my morals play a large factor in this). Perhaps a large amount of why I write so much is projection to make up for a lack of physical activism. Heaven knows I want to, but I have a family that I cannot afford to expose to the consequences of real-life activism, and I'm only just getting to the point where we have any amount of financial security (and don't get me wrong, I'm not poor in the way I see poverty. I'm not well off, but there's a huge nebulous gap between poor and well-off that is so hard to define these days. I'm still effectively working paycheck to paycheck, for example, and I have little to no financial backup if it goes wrong for me).

It's why I like to support candidates like Sanders (and like Warren, to a varying extent). To me they do represent real positive change, and I feel like I've been frustrated by the argument of electability for the past . . . six years or so? Most of what I'd consider my adult life (insert the appropriate emoji for me being legally an adult at 18. Legally, yes. In any other respect, hah. I've met teenagers and young adults with far more seriousness and knowledge than I ever did at that age, since). It frustrates me that it comes down to "socialism" being a scare word, or Biden being a safer option (though there a fascinating breakdown about PoC voters and why they'd vote for Biden; there's been an article or two about it but I don't have them to hand), because I see the same discussions played out in the UK. I see cultural exports - particularly online - of American conservatism making their way over the UK and establishing The Discourse along similarly frustrating lines.

Just a whole lot of frustration from me, really. I just have the privilege of being able to express it better than others at times, which is in no small part why I do. I'm being serious about privilege, too. For a personal example, my wife has severe anxiety and has been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD. I can explain some things better than she will ever be able to do to strangers. Sometimes the same principles apply online. I can get on my proverbial high horse because I'm not a marginalised minority, and because my life isn't in immediate danger (barring the usual frailties of the human body).

My proverbial high horse here is: please listen to more than just the dregs of the Internet when it comes to Sanders. It's very easy to get drawn into it (for anybody, really). I was linked to this Twitter thread today, if there was ever a recommendation from me to read a Twitter thread, this would be it.

I did listen to more than the dregs of the internet, I've liked Sanders since he went in Joe Rogan.

Unfortunately he's failed to expand his appeal or even shrunk it since 2016.

If you're an older liberal ie were an adult in the 90s or earlier you've seen a few elections and what works and what doesn't.

Electability is everything. Policies don't matter it's usually leaders charisma plus name recognition.

There's no votes in social policy, it's the economy stupid. Specifically for the middle class and who can bribe the middle class the best.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Going to minimise for the sake of convenience too, the same disclaimers apply. I've definitely appreciated this as well

1. If I see Sanders, or his (direct) team using that kind of language, I'd agree wholehearted. I'm a Brit, so maybe I missed something obvious, but has he? I sincerely think - and if you're anywhere near close to this to be in a position to make local change, nevermind greater-scale change, I really want you to consider - that the GOP will go in harder on this than you believe. Ironic? Absolutely. Hypocritical, even? Definitely. But their playbook doesn't care for that anymore. Much like how the Brexit discussion went down in both regional and national terms in the UK, hypocrisy matters incredibly little to a base like Trump's. The media cycle being owned by billionaire sociopaths doesn't help this either, everything is pushed harder and faster than ever before. People were burned out on Brexit way before anything actually happened with Brexit. And that was the point.

I mean, Clinton's emails are a great example of this. You're going to see that this time around, but more of it. Because it worked, and the world is four more years Online than it was, and the parts that aren't online have had their media channels saturated with more of the same in the same way.

2. I take a lot of things day by day, hah. It's a coping mechanism for various personal issues, nevermind the world at large. I appreciate the advice because it's always good to be reminded of what I have (especially as I'm about to transition from just-about-getting-by to pretty well off, rather immediately). But I can't stop thinking about the future, even the near future. I can't really explain this without sounding like a pretentious twit, but my brain works fast. Too fast! I cycle fast on the bad and dumb thoughts as much as I do the good and constructive thoughts. And that also risks ruining good thoughts simply by overthinking. But that's how I am. It's partly how I throw out giant walls of text seemingly on a whim, and also why I edit them repetitively for about 2 to 10 minutes afterwards depending on how long they turn out.

What I am doing now, what I am arguing with all the things I argue, is a part of trying to not consume the planet into unhabitability. But that also comes with the dual goal of bringing people forwards with me into that future, and not just my immediate family. I support minority rights because I cannot consider them a consequence, or casualty, in reducing consumption, for example (purely on an economic argument, but naturally my morals play a large factor in this). Perhaps a large amount of why I write so much is projection to make up for a lack of physical activism. Heaven knows I want to, but I have a family that I cannot afford to expose to the consequences of real-life activism, and I'm only just getting to the point where we have any amount of financial security (and don't get me wrong, I'm not poor in the way I see poverty. I'm not well off, but there's a huge nebulous gap between poor and well-off that is so hard to define these days. I'm still effectively working paycheck to paycheck, for example, and I have little to no financial backup if it goes wrong for me).

It's why I like to support candidates like Sanders (and like Warren, to a varying extent). To me they do represent real positive change, and I feel like I've been frustrated by the argument of electability for the past . . . six years or so? Most of what I'd consider my adult life (insert the appropriate emoji for me being legally an adult at 18. Legally, yes. In any other respect, hah. I've met teenagers and young adults with far more seriousness and knowledge than I ever did at that age, since). It frustrates me that it comes down to "socialism" being a scare word, or Biden being a safer option (though there a fascinating breakdown about PoC voters and why they'd vote for Biden; there's been an article or two about it but I don't have them to hand), because I see the same discussions played out in the UK. I see cultural exports - particularly online - of American conservatism making their way over the UK and establishing The Discourse along similarly frustrating lines.

Just a whole lot of frustration from me, really. I just have the privilege of being able to express it better than others at times, which is in no small part why I do. I'm being serious about privilege, too. For a personal example, my wife has severe anxiety and has been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD. I can explain some things better than she will ever be able to do to strangers. Sometimes the same principles apply online. I can get on my proverbial high horse because I'm not a marginalised minority, and because my life isn't in immediate danger (barring the usual frailties of the human body).

My proverbial high horse here is: please listen to more than just the dregs of the Internet when it comes to Sanders. It's very easy to get drawn into it (for anybody, really). I was linked to this Twitter thread today, if there was ever a recommendation from me to read a Twitter thread, this would be it.

I'm gonna bail on the aged wisdom conversation with just this...my kids are older than you and were effectively raised to be a terrorist cell. Despite it not really being necessary I am generally glad that they are in a position to engage in physical activism and even outright revolt should they opt for it...but it has costs for them and I like to keep them conscious of the fact that those costs are optional. I'm glad you are in the position you are in as opposed to theirs because I think the future rides on both rather than one or the other.

On the main point, that the GOP will undoubtedly ignore the irony and hypocrisy of using mentally not competent in their campaign rhetoric and that their faithful will not bat an eye, full agreement, so far as it goes. They won't skip it because of irony or hypocrisy. They also will not skimp on feeding it to their faithful to keep them happily fattened. But it will not be used much in a broader sense because it won't be effective and their strategists know that. In an environment not filled with their faithful it may reach someone in the back row who says "oh, yeah, @cardgame told me about that too, better pay attention," but in the main it will be outright laughed at and that costs more than the gains. This is different than saying "your ticket is headed by a self declared socialist" because unfortunately even a mixed crowd is going to sit up and take notice, in current US.

Okay, epic fail, I'm back to the aged wisdom part. I not only didn't get blown up yet, and not only managed to keep my family from getting blown up so far, but I also 'brought everyone forward' along the way. Your entire country didn't get blown up along with mine, which it seemed likely that it would and still could. The people who did not get blown up yet include "people of color" (I hate that term but it is just so accurate) and that in itself creates some common ground that wasn't necessarily recognizable when we (meaning me and similar vintage PoC) were young. And while the changes in society are not directly and exclusively attributable to that common ground being together in not getting blown up certainly hasn't hurt. Besides having managed to not get blown up the world really is a much better place in myriad ways that are not readily apparent from the POV of someone with your span of adult life to work with. So take heart, string together a number of days and years where the planet doesn't get so consumed that it kills everyone that day, go get old, and then check your results. I predict they will be okay.

 

[Takhisis]

Cool. Glad that's settled.

I'm glad that you do not dispute Birdjaguar's point that we should lynch you first in Arakhor's mafia game because of this thread.

I need to catch up with your tunnelling Gorbles now.

Blue no matter who, right guys?

Mr. Portokalos would certainly vote for the Windex.

 

[Takhisis]

Oh, this just in:

Trump’s speeches get longer as his enemy list grows, says expert​

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm glad that you do not dispute Birdjaguar's point that we should lynch you first in Arakhor's mafia game because of this thread.

I need to catch up with your tunnelling Gorbles now.

Mr. Portokalos would certainly vote for the Windex.

@Birdjaguar has not yet had the pleasure of being in a mafia game with me and is thus unaware of the consequences of trying to get me lynched. You, on the other hand, apparently know better and are trying to cast the responsibility onto him.

 

[Takhisis]

I've already told you that playing mafia is very much like political campaign.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've already told you that playing mafia is very much like political campaign.

I assume you do not think I would disagree with that assessment.

 

[Arwon]

This is pretty much intuitively obvious and results very simply from the US having only the regularly scheduled elections.

It's more a product of one being a standalone executive office and the other being held by a member of the legislature. Your house majority leader can change any time, they just don't happen to be part of executive government like a prime minister in a parliamentary republic or constitutional monarchy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's more a product of one being a standalone executive office and the other being held by a member of the legislature. Your house majority leader can change any time, they just don't happen to be part of executive government like a prime minister in a parliamentary republic or constitutional monarchy.

Fair enough. Either way it is a pretty simple outcome. The election for chief executive is a regularly scheduled event where the election of a house majority leader is held at need, so we need a provision for dealing with loss of chief executive that doesn't involve just waiting for the next election.

 

[Patine]

Fair enough. Either way it is a pretty simple outcome. The election for chief executive is a regularly scheduled event where the election of a house majority leader is held at need, so we need a provision for dealing with loss of chief executive that doesn't involve just waiting for the next election.

Interestingly enough, a notably significant number of countries with an elected chief executive called a "President," in the theory of the U.S. office, do not have a standing Vice President, but have another office with other set Constitutional functions - usually the presiding officer of the upper legislative house or the head justice of the highest national court, as the most common - take on the burden until the next scheduled election, instead, whereas South Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico have multiple Vice Presidents at once in order of succession precedence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Interestingly enough, a notably significant number of countries with an elected chief executive called a "President," in the theory of the U.S. office, do not have a standing Vice President, but have another office with other set Constitutional functions - usually the presiding officer of the upper legislative house or the head justice of the highest national court, as the most common - take on the burden until the next scheduled election, instead.

At cursory glance I'm not seeing "regularly scheduled election even if El Presidente keels over" as a really common thing. Most don't seem as rigorous as the USian "every four years if you need it or not" approach, but it was just a cursory glance.

 

[Patine]

At cursory glance I'm not seeing "regularly scheduled election even if El Presidente keels over" as a really common thing. Most don't seem as rigorous as the USian "every four years if you need it or not" approach, but it was just a cursory glance.

You're probably only glancing at the Post-Soviet States and "emerging democracies," then.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're probably only glancing at the Post-Soviet States and "emerging democracies," then.

Actually, I was thinking about Tropico and trying to come up with a simple way to examine real world states and wound up only continuing the former.