American Politics

[kkck]

For support?

From whom? Democratic socialist is a fairly wide label but it is also one that applies to a whole range of failed bullshit ideologies. Depending on which one you mean, even trump is a superior alternative. Add to that that not a single country that has ever had this, frankly moronic, label has ever had any measure of success at governing or creating wealth or stability. Its one thing to say democratic socialist and an entirely different one to say social democracy. It does not seem like bernie has anything to gain from using this label, if anything it is vastly detrimental in selling his brand. And to boot, the stuff he supports does look a lot more like social democracy than democratic socialism.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 2, 2018, Original Post Date: Aug 19, 2018 ---

So seeing how mccain's funeral turned into essentially a huge slap to the face to trump apparently... I have to wonder, is this worth it? Of course, I can understand a dislike for trump as much as the next guy but no matter how much I think about this making the guy's funeral a rebuke to trump seems to diminish the whole thing. Trump ultimately is... a sad and pathetic little man whose most defining personality trait is his capacity for spite and pettiness. For a figure as respected as mccain it seems sad to make so much of this about someone as minuscule as trump. I guess it is a good a time as it is ever going to get to try to make it about civility between parties because that is what mccain tried to do towards the end but damn, they do that without referencing the world's most insignificant leader so much.

 

[M3J]

Support from voters who don't like capitalism or how democrats/republicans are running things.

Methinks they want to rally people as well in McCain's honor, as he had a problem with Trump. Plus ,Trump did attack McCain and called him a loser for becoming PoW.

 

[Newkerzy]

So..... Any takers on who "Lodestar" is?

 

[James Rye]

Probably Pence getting ready for being the next president and preparing the creation of the first christian theocracy in the USA.

 

[kkck]

So..... Any takers on who "Lodestar" is?

Saying its pense makes it seem too... easy. Would pense REALLY be crazy enough to go through with this letter? I mean, it sounds too insane. One way or the other it does seem like it has to be someone reasonably important within trump's white house, otherwise the NYT just made a terrible job publishing an anonymous letter from an irrelevant asshole for no reason. So the possibilities I see:

Pense did it. Even with the loderstar thing this really does not sound like pense to me. He has said insane things of course but he generally seems to approach things in a "business is business" attitude and this letter certainly does not seem like that. And as a presidential bid it seems bad considering it doesn't even appeal to trump supporters aka republicans. If he did it this is

The alternative which makes more sense to me: Some other asshole did it. And it has to be someone important enough to make the NYTs consider this to be a good idea. As for the motive... It could be that pense was being set up. This does sound like something someone in trump's WH would do. A backstab to try and get rid of pense ideally. Pense is after all a mainstream republican while trump... at least on rhetoric isn't necessarily one. A trumpier staff member trying to get rid of someone that might actually be a check of sorts on trump and his trumpier instincts. Bolton maybe? To have more freedom to start wars... Then again I am not sure if pense is particularly war averse to warrant getting rid of.

And then finally... someone not pense just thought this was a good idea and had no other intentions beyond what the letter says. The least likely scenario IMO. But chances aren't zero because this is the WH that thought hiring someone as useless as omarosa would be a good idea. I guess it could also be someone who is about to break from trump's staff and wanted to throw a wrench at the guy.

 

[xi0]

"Lodestar" is just too obvious of a clue IMO. Though, do we think Pence is so full of himself that he wouldn't be careful about what words he would used when trying to appear anonymous? I could buy into that actually, but there's a few examples of his writing from the past and he's not very good at it. Though he probably doesn't do his own writing these days anyway... But the notion that this is somehow helping anything is rather laughable to me. In fact it's only giving Trump more excuses to act out. If the person had any gall he'd go public with his/her allies and resign. That would make more of an impact than remaining anonymous IMO. This person or persons want to be on record working against Trump while working for him... that seems pretty self-serving to me. So whenever this circus destroys itself this person can reveal themselves, write a book, and hope people don't notice all of the times they were complicit with this administration.

Or is this one big distraction from the Kavanaugh hearings propagated by the White House themselves?

 

[kkck]

Or is this one big distraction from the Kavanaugh hearings propagated by the White House themselves?

That... also makes sense. Trump used to use tabloid papers to publish bs stories about people he disliked so him getting one of his cronies to do this wouldn't be that big a stretch. And as a distraction its pretty good. Were it not for his history with tabloids I'd say this is too smart for trump though.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 25, 2018, Original Post Date: Sep 7, 2018 ---

To all the people who were worried about other nations laughing at the US president behind his back: Congratulations. Victory is yours. Now people laugh in the presidents face.

 

[M3J]

I don't feel bad at all, I'm okay with them laughing at Trump and at us. We deserve it for even letting a derp get past the primaries, much less win the election despite losing popular vote.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 28, 2018, Original Post Date: Sep 25, 2018 ---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddes...OTpztlpKvldLp_HIvVrrHS0bz7DYt43E#76616c657269

 

[xi0]

I don't feel bad at all, I'm okay with them laughing at Trump and at us. We deserve it for even letting a derp get past the primaries, much less win the election despite losing popular vote.

Huh? But neither of us voted for him in either of those elections so how do we "deserve" it?

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 28, 2018, Original Post Date: Oct 28, 2018 ---

I'm not responsible for the politics of my neighhbor

 

[Spirit]

People talking of Civil War at the moment. Every time I think the Geopolitical situation has gone off the deep end, America finds a way to plummet down another cliff.

 

[llamapie]

You all need a civics class.

I'm not kidding.

 

[M3J]

Huh? But neither of us voted for him in either of those elections so how do we "deserve" it?

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 28, 2018, Original Post Date: Oct 28, 2018 ---

I'm not responsible for the politics of my neighhbor

I'm well aware that he lost the popular vote by millions, but if far more people who are against him voted, then he probably would never have won. Hillary might have been just as bad, but she'd be more tactful about it.

You all need a civics class.

I'm not kidding.

We have a US history class, and people still think US has never been violent or experienced terrorism until recently. Civics ain't gonna help shit.

 

[llamapie]

I'm well aware that he lost the popular vote by millions, but if far more people who are against him voted, then he probably would never have won. Hillary might have been just as bad, but she'd be more tactful about it.

We have a US history class, and people still think US has never been violent or experienced terrorism until recently. Civics ain't gonna help shit.

I was referring to the whole "he lost the popular vote" line that keeps popping up.

1) The USA is not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.
- This means we elect representatives. Hence the Electoral College.
2) This prevents mob rule from the states with the heaviest population and allows for equal representation from the less populated states.

So my question would be how is that fair or even a good idea to give all the power to the people in inner cities and ignore the rest of the populace?

And as to if Hillary would have been worse, that is a resounding yes. She and her hubby are some of the most corrupt politicians to ever grace the country with their antics. Beyond that, economically Trump has been incredible for us and he will easily be reelected at this point.

Yes, I realize my opinion is likely highly unpopular here .

 

[xi0]

2) This prevents mob rule from the states with the heaviest population and allows for equal representation from the less populated states

The heaviest-populated states still have more impact on who gets elected, so I don't see how it's much different than a direct vote.

The Electoral College persisted because Southerners wanted it to. A direct election wouldn't allow slaves to vote, with Northerners outnumbering Southerners because of it. The Electoral College allowed Southerners to count slaves towards their population, albeit with 2/5ths value. Southern states literally got more electoral votes after each census for buying/breeding more slaves. And from the moment the Constitution was ratified, we had slave-owning Presidents for decades, so what chance would reform even have? This is the type of thing that isn't taught in civics class.

Now, does this mean that the current system is a relic and has no useful function? I don't actually know, there are points on each side. But stating that it somehow gives "equal representation" to smaller states or that it exists because of that reason is really iffy . Us having two elections already this century where one candidate won the popular vote but lost due to the electoral college does raise some eyebrows.

 

[llamapie]

The heaviest-populated states still have more impact on who gets elected, so I don't see how it's much different than a direct vote.

The Electoral College persisted because Southerners wanted it to. A direct election wouldn't allow slaves to vote, with Northerners outnumbering Southerners because of it. The Electoral College allowed Southerners to count slaves towards their population, albeit with 2/5ths value. Southern states literally got more electoral votes after each census for buying/breeding more slaves. And from the moment the Constitution was ratified, we had slave-owning Presidents for decades, so what chance would reform even have? This is the type of thing that isn't taught in civics class.

Now, does this mean that the current system is a relic and has no useful function? I don't actually know, there are points on each side. But stating that it somehow gives "equal representation" to smaller states or that it exists because of that reason is really iffy . Us having two elections already this century where one candidate won the popular vote but lost due to the electoral college does raise some eyebrows.

It's simple and my point remains. It is not meant to be a popularity contest because we are NOT a Democracy.

It has never meant to be mob rule, which is why the system is designed the way it is. You will have a constant 51% making decisions for the remaining 49%, which is unfair and makes no sense. This allows states such as Michigan to have a say over states like California who have a majority of the population. Why should people in California dictate what happens in Michigan simply because they have more people?

It's a dangerous concept, but hey let's complain because Trump won and a Felon lost.

 

[xi0]

It's simple and my point remains. It is not meant to be a popularity contest because we are NOT a Democracy.

It has never meant to be mob rule, which is why the system is designed the way it is. You will have a constant 51% making decisions for the remaining 49%, which is unfair and makes no sense. This allows states such as Michigan to have a say over states like California who have a majority of the population. Why should people in California dictate what happens in Michigan simply because they have more people?

It's a dangerous concept, but hey let's complain because Trump won and a Felon lost.

I think you mean we aren't a Direct Democracy. We are a Representative Democracy and a Republic... a Democratic republic, if you will.

But it's like that anyways? You're saying because the numbers are different due to the Electoral College it isn't that close? Except that's a complete deception with the winner-take-all format IMO. The electoral vote total being as wide as it was is by design.... but that doesn't change who voted for who.

Californians wouldn't dictate what happens in Michigan because they have more people, they'd help dictate what happens in the presidential election. Which has nothing to do with Michigan's government. The Executive Branch doesn't serve a state, it serves the entire country.

This discussion existed far before this election, it only came up because yet again the person who received the most votes lost. I'm not even saying the system should absolutely be changed, but let's be honest with ourselves about why it exists.

 

[kkck]

It's simple and my point remains. It is not meant to be a popularity contest because we are NOT a Democracy.

It has never meant to be mob rule, which is why the system is designed the way it is. You will have a constant 51% making decisions for the remaining 49%, which is unfair and makes no sense. This allows states such as Michigan to have a say over states like California who have a majority of the population. Why should people in California dictate what happens in Michigan simply because they have more people?

It's a dangerous concept, but hey let's complain because Trump won and a Felon lost.

But... what you are suggesting here does not actually solve the issue of a bigger state imposing its will over a smaller one. What you are suggesting merely flips this and creating a worst situation than the 51% imposing over the 49%... instead you get the 49% imposing over the 51%. Why should a smaller amount of the population dictate what happens to a greater amount of the population? That simply can't be healthy for a country's institutionality. Add to that, the US does have the institutions to protect its states from what others do. The senate is meant for that very purpose (even if both parties have over time castrated it at their convenience by systematically making it so that simple majorities can pass whatever the party in control wants).

Also, the notion that trump is less corrupt that hillary is laughable at best. Trump ran on his corruption, he bragged about it.... Clinton is without a speck of a doubt a corrupt politician but trump can't even pretend to be ethical.

 

[M3J]

I was referring to the whole "he lost the popular vote" line that keeps popping up.

1) The USA is not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.
- This means we elect representatives. Hence the Electoral College.
2) This prevents mob rule from the states with the heaviest population and allows for equal representation from the less populated states.

So my question would be how is that fair or even a good idea to give all the power to the people in inner cities and ignore the rest of the populace?

And as to if Hillary would have been worse, that is a resounding yes. She and her hubby are some of the most corrupt politicians to ever grace the country with their antics. Beyond that, economically Trump has been incredible for us and he will easily be reelected at this point.

Yes, I realize my opinion is likely highly unpopular here .

shio's probably the only one, if not one of the few, who'd actually defend the Clintons. Hillary is corrupt, but she's still better than Trump.

Personally, I don't mind the electoral college.

 

[Franckie]

Personally, I'd feel better if the US had a parliamentary style of government. The US has too many veto points that make it nigh-impossible to properly invest in our population. For the past 30+ years, it's become far more difficult for Democrats to be competitive at the national level. We have de facto minority rule via the Republican Party. I'd also get rid of state governments if given the chance. At times, they feel like the banana republics I've visited over the years.

I don't feel bad at all, I'm okay with them laughing at Trump and at us. We deserve it for even letting a derp get past the primaries, much less win the election despite losing popular vote.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 28, 2018, Original Post Date: Sep 25, 2018 ---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2018/10/26/how-trumps-psychology-of-hate-unleashed-the-magabomber/?utm_source=FACEBOOK&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Valerie/&fbclid=IwAR1WbUxdm29ZnWZ9keQAqs4Q9BDOTpztlpKvldLp_HIvVrrHS0bz7DYt43E#76616c657269

You can also thank that political hack James Comey for electing Trump. Holding that press conference ~12 days before the election (in violation of Justice Dept. & FBI regulations) likely cost Clinton around 3% - 4% of the popular vote. Trump's own analysts concluded it was decisive. Hence we're now stuck with the Moron-in-Chief. Make no mistake, however. His enablers, Congressional Republicans, are worse. They only give a hoot about tax cuts for the rich and packing courts with corporate stooges. Everything else (i.e., the Emoluments Clause) is of secondary concern.

 

[kkck]

Comey went wrong well before that. Had he followed procedure even clintons investigation would have remained non public. And of course comey did all he did he did because he started considering politics and was so sure hillary would win...