Springsteen nailed it again last night at AAMI! All I can say is, if you haven't seen this guy live, 'Do yourself a favour'. 67 years young, does not stop for 3 plus hours AND DELIVERS! #bucketlistmust
Going next Saturday Townsend, looking forward to it!
His 'Embarrassed American' comment hasn't gone down too well on social media.
Legendary performer/song writer but should keep his political views out of his concerts where it costs a small fortune to watch him live.
Sick of listening to celebrities and musicians using their status to try and push a political view.
Half his songs are political...the horse might have bolted!!
Half his songs are political...the horse might have bolted!!
Ironically, most of his classic stuff (Mid 70s to early 80s) was commenting on exactly the part of working class America that turned on Clinton in the last election !
Going next Saturday Townsend, looking forward to it!
Which one Bear? AAMI Park on Saturday 4th (was a great night as always!) or Hanging Rock on the 11th Feb? Is this the first time you've seen him?
Which one Bear? AAMI Park on Saturday 4th (was a great night as always!) or Hanging Rock on the 11th Feb? Is this the first time you've seen him?
Hanging Rock... first time.
I'm excited.
His 'Embarrassed American' comment hasn't gone down too well on social media.
Legendary performer/song writer but should keep his political views out of his concerts where it costs a small fortune to watch him live.
Sick of listening to celebrities and musicians using their status to try and push a political view.
Not sure you'll get much joy there Shawny old son. Celebrities, like the rest of us, are entitled to a view, and we're entitled to accept, reject or ignore it.
I'm off to the hunter valley, Saturday week.
Can't wait
The American people were sick of mega rich celebrities telling them who to vote for hence why Trump is in power.
We've all woken up the morning after the night before, realizing that what seemed like a good idea at the time, isn't really that now.
Whatever drunken fervor took hold of the American people, whatever motivation they had, the spell will soon wear off. Or to borrow a snippet from Churchill, "tomorrow I shall be sober."
Voting for Trump simply to stick it to the East Coast Elites is the height of stupidity. I thought Hilary Clinton was ordinary, but her position on just about any topic I can think of was better than Trump's.
We've all woken up the morning after the night before, realizing that what seemed like a good idea at the time, isn't really that now.
Whatever drunken fervor took hold of the American people, whatever motivation they had, the spell will soon wear off. Or to borrow a snippet from Churchill, "tomorrow I shall be sober."
Voting for Trump simply to stick it to the East Coast Elites is the height of stupidity. I thought Hilary Clinton was ordinary, but her position on just about any topic I can think of was better than Trump's.
Why??
I see lots of hysteria, but not much of substance actually occurring at the minute.
Hanging Rock... first time.
I'm excited.
Have a great time mate, you won't be disappointed I reckon, one of the best live acts ever, and set list is never the same, so you never know what you'll get:-) About an hour and a bit into the AAMI Park show in 2014, Bruce steps up and says "we're going to play Born in the USA from start to finish" and they did...things like that are what make Springsteen & the E Street Band my favs ;)
The American people were sick of mega rich celebrities telling them who to vote for hence why Trump is in power.
I'm not sure whether you're having a lend of us MBB but isn't Trump a mega rich celebrity?
I'm not sure whether you're having a lend of us MBB but isn't Trump a mega rich celebrity?
The yanks are sick of mega rich celebrities telling them who to vote for. They're not sick of voting them into power. Or should I say, they're not sick of a system where someone with less actual votes can win office.
The yanks are sick of mega rich celebrities telling them who to vote for. They're not sick of voting them into power. Or should I say, they're not sick of a system where someone with less actual votes can win office.
You can knock Trump for a multitude of things (and we'll continue to do so) but one thing you cant get him and his team on is election strategy
More often than not the electoral college system will produce a President with the greatest number of popular votes as well as the electoral college votes.
This was a bit of an anomaly.
It's only happened a handful of times (four or five in history)....but that was the system and everyone knew it.
Campaigning would have been different with a different system.
Much was made of the Democrats ground game before the election.
They were going to win because they were much better organised at local levels, while the Republicans were a divided rabble.
In the end the reverse happened and the Trump camp "done them like a dinner"
In the final days Trump bounced around the key states and managed to lock them away.
Complacency and a lack of preparation will nearly always get you in the end.
Lods. The system is dopey and regressive, and I would think that even if Bernie Sanders was elected Prez.
If "democracy" means anything, it means majority rules. One vote should count as one vote, at least at the primary level.
Lods. The system is dopey and regressive, and I would think that even if Bernie Sanders was elected Prez.
If "democracy" means anything, it means majority rules. One vote should count as one vote, at least at the primary level.
Doesn't really matter what the system is that's the one you play by.
The thing about the USA is that you get much more diversity across the different states in terms of values and attitudes.
I go to Victoria and I've just got to make sure I ask for a potato cake when I want a scallop. ;D
Life in New York would be very different from life in Mississippi. Life in Montana different from life in Florida. Life in Alaska different from life in Hawaii....I suspect they don't want California deciding every President...In that respect the electoral college system works pretty well in providing a balanced (or in this case unbalanced) candidate.
If Trump had won the popular vote and not the electoral college I'm sure his supporters would be just as critical...I just wonder whether the independent observer would be though.
Four times in over two hundred years the candidate with the popular vote has not won the electoral college.....four times!
Hardly something to get too worked up about.
Hardly a flawed system.
I'm not critical of the system because I don't like the victor, I'm critical of the system full stop. The diversity that you refer to would be more easily dealt with on a political level if voting was compulsory and if one vote counted as such.
I'm not critical of the system because I don't like the victor, I'm critical of the system full stop. The diversity that you refer to would be more easily dealt with on a political level if voting was compulsory and if one vote counted as such.
No it wouldn't
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Pie_chart_of_US_population_by_state.png)
It's a fairly asanine argument to go with most votes win with such an unfair distribution of voters.
Realistically our situation isn't much different. Win the majority seats and you're going to be invited to form government, and that doesn't mean more votes,that just means more seats.
If it's a democracy, then the majority must rule. If 90% of the US population live in Alabama, or California, then so be it. Trying to doctor a system that evens the score because some states will be ignored leads to results like this one. You either get penalized because you're too small, or you get penalized because you're too big.
If politicians weren't so crap, those in power would make decisions that benefit the entire country, including smaller states, and not simply decisions that appeal to their particular constituents.
If it's a democracy, then the majority must rule. If 90% of the US population live in Alabama, or California, then so be it. Trying to doctor a system that evens the score because some states will be ignored leads to results like this one. You either get penalized because you're too small, or you get penalized because you're too big.
If politicians weren't so crap, those in power would make decisions that benefit the entire country, including smaller states, and not simply decisions that appeal to their particular constituents.
Far be it from me to try and explain politics but isnt the system largely similar to what we have here? That is, you vote at council/geographical level and most votes in each section wins the section....and most sections wins overall.
Some sections are smaller due to having more voters.
If there are 10 sections and 9 win by a single vote (say x) and the other one wins by 10,000 votes (say y).
X wins 9 out 10.
Y gets more overall votes but wins only 1/10 sections.
How is this different?
If it's a democracy, then the majority must rule. If 90% of the US population live in Alabama, or California, then so be it. Trying to doctor a system that evens the score because some states will be ignored leads to results like this one. You either get penalized because you're too small, or you get penalized because you're too big.
If politicians weren't so crap, those in power would make decisions that benefit the entire country, including smaller states, and not simply decisions that appeal to their particular constituents.
One vote one value is a fine principle...but it's not the ideal.
The electoral college system (and also ours) isn't that different to a "one vote, one value" system.
Both 'electoral college votes per state' and (and our own electorates) are largely determined by population.
Win most electoral college votes and it usually means you've also won the popular vote (4 times in Presidential history has this not been the case)
Winning most electorates in an Australian election usually means you've won the popular vote.
So it's not the huge issue it's being made out to be.
But what the American system (and our one) does do is make parties and candidates give some attention to all areas of a country.
Taking this to an extreme.....
In a popular vote election in the US a candidate would spend all their time in just half a dozen states, "pork barelling" those particular areas... That's where nearly half the votes are.....you wouldn't see them in the "Other" States on that pie chart.
In Australia under a popular vote system parties and candidates wouldn't spend any time (or money) outside of the Capital cities....other than perhaps roads connecting them.
Yes, those are all fair point lods. I can't disagree with any of that.
I note in my brief research that in our 1998 election, Labor won the popular vote, but failed to win government.
If it's a democracy, then the majority must rule. If 90% of the US population live in Alabama, or California, then so be it. Trying to doctor a system that evens the score because some states will be ignored leads to results like this one. You either get penalized because you're too small, or you get penalized because you're too big.
Ridiculous post. You may as well say the "deplorables" from the country don't matter.