J.C.MacSwell

Why do I need to do that? Maybe if a clearly better candidate had been available prior to Biden announcing DEI criteria...he wouldn't have announced DEI criteria...

My context was for a single position.

We (not sure if you were included) definitely discussed this here. Just over four years ago but I am absolutely sure. I said at the time Biden should have simply made his choice as the best available pick. Being black, and being female, could have factored in to that, politics being what it is. But he didn't do that. He virtue signalled in not a good way IMO. That's on him, not Harris. I'm sure she was happy she was chosen but would have preferred to be chosen as the best available candidate, not the best available black female. Correct me if I'm wrong but choosing a DEI candidate doesn't mean you won't get the best candidate, it just means you've excluded other candidates that might have been a better choice. For my part, I didn't like the pick at the time, nothing to do with the fact she was black or female, but like it now...also nothing to do with the fact she's black or female.

Unfortunately that's on Biden. He literally announced that he intended to choose a black female as running mate. She's more than qualified to run your country as POTUS, certainly far more than Biden or Trump, but she was in fact a DEI choice for VP as a running mate. Not that Burchett should get a pass for firing the gun Biden loaded, but that's politics today. Of course many in the GOP say far worse and have absolutely no excuse.

What I meant by a pure democracy, unlimited by a constitution (or equivalent), would describe a situation where a majority could run roughshod, even enslave, a minority simply by voting to do so. I don't think that would be a better system.

With infinite monkeys a subset infinite number of them would type them out directly with no mistakes. Plenty of time for that...

You don't want a pure democracy, you need a constitutional democracy that will protect certain rights of the minority as well. In Canada we often have majority governments with 40% of the popular vote and could mathematically have a majority government with less than half of that. Just win seats with the minimum needed and don't get any votes in seats you lose. There's no perfect system, though some countries run re-votes until someone gets over 50%.

Like Harris, she would also have handed Trump his ass in a debate, but he refused just as he did for any second debate against Harris. Instead he just holds blowhard rallies, complete with sexist and racist content...brags incessantly, and somehow gets a pass. I keep looking at the polls and thinking "are you kidding me?" Hopefully they are, due to overcompensating for past mistakes,

This seems of concern IMO that spouses can share the same voting booth in North Carolina. https://ncnewsline.com/2024/10/25/alamance-county-married-couples-polling-booths/

Well...I would say that some people are racist and sexist, some more than Trump, and these people seem to gravitate more toward the GOP than the Democrats...in part, but not all...because Trump

I've heard they often factor up the younger age groups to account for their low tendency to answer polls...increasing the margin of error in the poll itself. I think they also expect these groups to vote less than they might in this one. It may turn out that younger females voting for the first time make the difference. So hopefully we are pleasantly surprised come Wednesday morning but right now it just seems like a coin flip.

The sides I was referring to were the politicians and pundits of the Democrat and Republican parties, and no I don't expect any reasonable debate any time soon.

Let the fireworks begin!

+1. We have at least a semblance of a reasonable system. Hopefully the US can get back to at least that.

The point is that everyone has more than just a sense that there is a substantial difference between a fetus in the third trimester, that often live even born prematurely, and one in the first, yet polls like that often totally ignore it. That in itself is leading if the implication is a more average pregnancy. Given that, I don't think describing Canadians as a majority being completely pro-choice is accurate as the question wasn't put in that manner.

Enough to know they would seek political advantage to the detriment of reasonable compromise, Hard to blame given the current political climate...but blame they will

Right. One that could lead to a reasonable compromise if both sides were willing to debate it...but it seems they would just be taken advantage of if they tried.

Why then do the Democrats not make it clear that they don't support it? That, despite the relative rarity, is foremost in what they are being accused of. I'm surprised Trump, the way he exaggerates hasn't accused Democrats of being in favour of killing babies after they're born...oh wait...he has...

Thanks CY. Interesting that the health, age and viability of the fetus isn't reflected in any of the categories. I think the poll would come out quite differently if it had been, and then aggregated in those 5 categories. Despite that poll indicating otherwise I don't think a majority of Canadians would be okay with abortion on demand for a healthy fetus just prior to potential birth in all cases, even if the demand would be considered an unlikely occurrence.

In favour of what, exactly? Unrestricted access vs no access? I suspect both would be minority positions in Canada. But obviously those numbers describe neither.

I've always encouraged everyone to vote regardless of who I thought they might vote for...but now I find myself hoping you told this guy "right on man, don't forget to get out next Wednesday on Nov 6th and vote...I hear they're tearing up the early ballots!"

No doubt, but in this case it's both recent and very easy to connect the dots. Hinchcliffe is claiming it's just jokes, but he was warming up a crowd for Trump. I've not heard of anything to indicate Trump took exception to it, when he spoke at the rally afterwards or since

I'm sure that is also true. As obvious as it might be to you, more blunt will surely make it harder for his GOP cohorts to liesplain away the more outrageous statements, such as Tony Hinchcliffe's "jokes". To their credit, some in the GOP condemn his remarks...too bad it needs to be taken to that level before they respond.

On topic...with much of the GOP going around claiming Trump doesn't really mean what he says...surely Trump himself will need to explain some of the stuff said on his behalf at yesterdays rally: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/28/fact-check-donald-trumps-madison-square-garden-rally-in-new-york-city (the outright racial insults...not the more of the same run-of-the-mill lies)

At the time he was more a symptom stemming from the radical left, which allowed at least some of his blowhard proclamations to seem reasonable by comparison... He had always been an a-hole, but hadn't outed himself as a dangerous insurrectionist.