nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Quin_Dub

The continuing discussion of the Donald Trump Presidency.

Keep it civil and please note the charter before posting

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

MrFresh

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Unpopular opinion here.

Gotta say, I thought Kamala Harris’s attack on Joe Biden in the debate was pretty cynical and nasty. There’s absolutely nothing racist about being against federally mandated forced bussing. One can be against it for a plethora of reasons other than racism (mainly that it’s a terrible policy that failed to achieve it’s aims in many places it was implemented which is why Biden believed it should be the choice of the local authority.) Also it led to white flight to the suburbs in many cases removing the tax base from schools that needed funding the most. Also maybe it should be the choice of the parent where to send their kid to school?
Joe Biden’s no racist. He’s a clumsy, doddery, wierd old gaffe machine who frequently sabotages his campaigns with stupid comments like when he called Obama the “only clean black presidential candidate”. He would be consigned to the dustbin of political history had Obama not chosen him for VP
But he ain’t a racist. Nobody has any proof of that. So yea, cynical move by Kamala,

Should be noted though she’s a vicious and skilled debater who’s just thrown herself back into contention even if her means where quite immoral.

Don't know a lot about this topic but what would happen in areas where the local authority is in favour of segregation if it was left up to them?

Sean.3516

Unpopular opinion here.

Gotta say, I thought Kamala Harris’s attack on Joe Biden in the debate was pretty cynical and nasty. There’s absolutely nothing racist about being against federally mandated forced bussing. One can be against it for a plethora of reasons other than racism (mainly that it’s a terrible policy that failed to achieve it’s aims in many places it was implemented which is why Biden believed it should be the choice of the local authority.) Also it led to white flight to the suburbs in many cases removing the tax base from schools that needed funding the most. Also maybe it should be the choice of the parent where to send their kid to school?
Joe Biden’s no racist. He’s a clumsy, doddery, wierd old gaffe machine who frequently sabotages his campaigns with stupid comments like when he called Obama the “only clean black presidential candidate”. He would be consigned to the dustbin of political history had Obama not chosen him for VP
But he ain’t a racist. Nobody has any proof of that. So yea, cynical move by Kamala,

Should be noted though she’s a vicious and skilled debater who’s just thrown herself back into contention even if her means where quite immoral.

[Deleted User]

Lolle06 wrote: »

Well, at the end of the day the Brexit vote was democratic, because every voter had the same vote and the majority of votes win. In a democracy, the minority is ruled by the majority (even if it means large losses to the minority)- otherwise it would be the other way around. In the US a few states basically outweigh other areas, with a higher population, because of the EC system. Cancelling out millions of votes to the benefit of a few thousand votes. The minority rules over the majority. Is this democratic?

I agree with what you're saying but not really in countries the size of the US when it comes to actual political votes like presidencies or mad stuff like leaving the EU.

Remove the system instead of fixing it and policies change. Policies that may be to detriment of an entire population of an area shouldn't be dictated by other larger areas with different goals of a lack of repercussions.

Should Ireland have even been given a choice in Lisbon or Nice if the majority of Europe wanted it? I mean, I certainly wouldn't be happy if a few large countries passed legislation that meant all the small ones didn't matter. I'm arguing for something here that is done all the time. The EU was built with its own version of the electoral system for a reason. Same as the US.

Christy42 wrote: »

@Ads: you can have an electoral system. However the US system entirely ca ignore big changes in many US states. 1 million extra people vote Republican in California because of a bad democrat candidate. Nobody cares. Similar for high percentage shifts in majority red/blue states. The new votes are irrelevant unless there is a shift of seismic proportions.

1% or 2% in Ohio and it is a big deal. You can overvalue small states but not have this issue.

Adjustments should be made if it continues to cause strife. I'm a fan of proactive changes rather than populist reactive ones.

Inflammatory paragraph: I truly believe that if every vote were swapped, then Hillary would be president and people would laud her for representing the nation, and not a few big Red/Blue states. People may not agree, but we certainly wouldn't be talking about this in an anti-Trump thread if it had happened. It would be in the anti-Hillary thread by different people.

Gbear

Deleted User wrote: »

The small states are massively over-represented in the Senate and somewhat in the House of Representatives.
If it's about the states why not just have most states wins?
Can't speak for anyone else but it's nothing to do with Trump for me. The small states get their extra representation in the legislative branch, I don't think they need it in the executive as well.

And they also get independent representation in their own state legislatures.

It is particularly in a fully federalised state like that where there is a fair bit of devolved government that you don't want or need that kind of lopsidedness in representation in the executive branch.

The president should represent the single entity of the US and every citizen should be represented equally.
They vote him in not as citizens of Texas or Kentucky, but as citizens of the US.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Regarding my post about the electoral college which was brought up again in this new thread two pages back, I'd like to add that the UK voting for Brexit is a perfect example of what diverse countries without electoral college-type systems can lead to.

The UK is leaving because of England's population size. That's it really. The votes of Scotland and NI were effectively neutered because you have large swathes of England wanting one thing, while the most affected region, NI, takes the brunt of that vote.

There are prominent posters who bemoan the electoral college in one thread, and then bemoan the unfairness of the Brexit vote in the other. These opinions are so often not opinions about the systems themselves; they're opinions resulting from the wrong side winning. If you want the electoral college to disappear, you are saying that NI's tiny population should be ruled by England's massive population, and there should never be any system in place to help avoid something like Brexit. The mere concept of "all four countries should have needed to vote for Brexit" disappears once you argue that the popular vote knows best.

In the US, Clinton won the popular vote because of LA. She won there by over three million votes. What is more representative of America? Trump winning far more states, or Clinton winning LA by a huge margin? Be honest with yourselves and forget about Trump. Winning far more states is more representative of America.

The entire notion of "the United States" falls apart once the majority of those states become irrelevant in a presidential election. One poster said eight states will have half the population by 2050 I think. Is your disdain for Trump really so strong that you would ironocally support a populist change that would damage politics in the long run? Unfortunately, I think that for most here, yes it is.

The small states are massively over-represented in the Senate and somewhat in the House of Representatives.
If it's about the states why not just have most states wins?
Can't speak for anyone else but it's nothing to do with Trump for me. The small states get their extra representation in the legislative branch, I don't think they need it in the executive as well.

pixelburp

amandstu wrote: »

Are you sure it was advisory?

I was under that same impression too but it is never brought up rather it is repeated that to ignore it would alienate a large section of he electorate.

If it was/is indeed advisory only then that bolsters the case for a second (advisory) referendum as it would not then be seen to be in contradiction with the first (unless perhaps the same question was asked)

I have never heard it pointed out since that this (first) referendum was advisory and so I have become confused over the years as to its real status.

Also, being advisory does highlight any obviously misleading information whereas a binding referendum might have implied more of a "caveat emptor" provision if voter were lazy enough or willing to believe misleading propaganda (perhaps this existed on both sides.I can't really say)

It was advisory but IMO the argument that it be taken as this was a weak response to the result. The Will of the People people have used this excuse like a bludgeon throughout the whole arduous process, batting aside every argument with that Pavlovian reply, and voicing the "it was only advisory" would be screamed at as going against ... ... The Will of the People.

amandstu

looksee wrote: »

A bit OT but the Brexit vote was not democratic, it was based on misinformation and was only ever supposed to be advisory. It was democratic to the extent that everyone had a vote, but voting was controlled by being based on lies. The result has since been treated as binding.

Are you sure it was advisory?

I was under that same impression too but it is never brought up rather it is repeated that to ignore it would alienate a large section of he electorate.

If it was/is indeed advisory only then that bolsters the case for a second (advisory) referendum as it would not then be seen to be in contradiction with the first (unless perhaps the same question was asked)

I have never heard it pointed out since that this (first) referendum was advisory and so I have become confused over the years as to its real status.

Also, being advisory does highlight any obviously misleading information whereas a binding referendum might have implied more of a "caveat emptor" provision if voter were lazy enough or willing to believe misleading propaganda (perhaps this existed on both sides.I can't really say)

Lolle06

looksee wrote: »

A bit OT but the Brexit vote was not democratic, it was based on misinformation and was only ever supposed to be advisory. It was democratic to the extent that everyone had a vote, but voting was controlled by being based on lies. The result has since been treated as binding.

Yes, the fact that BJ and NF duped the electorate to vote their way with misinformation and Camerons decision afterwards, is another matter. Still, the majority of voters in the UK rules over the minority.

Igotadose

You know you've lost the narrative when "Highlights for Children", as bland and kid friendly as there is, condemns your governments policies. Heck I remember reading it 55 years ago.

MrFresh

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm confused by this

This video should help explain gerrymandering in action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY

Larbre34

He's on a bit of a mad one just now in Osaka, even by his standards.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

We don't know that. Common Cause v Lewis is schedule to be heard in the North Carolina courts two weeks from today. It was only filed in November of 2018, so for much of the duration of the federal case, they had not even tried the State court option.

Will it effect every state? Until it is fixed it is a pretty big blow vs democracy.

@Ads: you can have an electoral system. However the US system entirely ca ignore big changes in many US states. 1 million extra people vote Republican in California because of a bad democrat candidate. Nobody cares. Similar for high percentage shifts in majority red/blue states. The new votes are irrelevant unless there is a shift of seismic proportions.

1% or 2% in Ohio and it is a big deal. You can overvalue small states but not have this issue.

looksee

Lolle06 wrote: »

Well, at the end of the day the Brexit vote was democratic, because every voter had the same vote and the majority of votes win. In a democracy, the minority is ruled by the majority (even if it means large losses to the minority)- otherwise it would be the other way around. In the US a few states basically outweigh other areas, with a higher population, because of the EC system. Cancelling out millions of votes to the benefit of a few thousand votes. The minority rules over the majority. Is this democratic?

A bit OT but the Brexit vote was not democratic, it was based on misinformation and was only ever supposed to be advisory. It was democratic to the extent that everyone had a vote, but voting was controlled by being based on lies. The result has since been treated as binding.

Lolle06

Deleted User wrote: »

There are prominent posters who bemoan the electoral college in one thread, and then bemoan the unfairness of the Brexit vote in the other. These opinions are so often not opinions about the systems themselves; they're opinions resulting from the wrong side winning. If you want the electoral college to disappear, you are saying that NI's tiny population should be ruled by England's massive population, and there should never be any system in place to help avoid something like Brexit. The mere concept of "all four countries should have needed to vote for Brexit" disappears once you argue that the popular vote knows best.

In the US, Clinton won the popular vote because of LA. She won there by over three million votes. What is more representative of America? Trump winning far more states, or Clinton winning LA by a huge margin? Be honest with yourselves and forget about Trump. Winning far more states is more representative of America.

Well, at the end of the day the Brexit vote was democratic, because every voter had the same vote and the majority of votes win. In a democracy, the minority is ruled by the majority (even if it means large losses to the minority)- otherwise it would be the other way around. In the US a few states basically outweigh other areas, with a higher population, because of the EC system. Cancelling out millions of votes to the benefit of a few thousand votes. The minority rules over the majority. Is this democratic?

eire4

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm confused by this

What actually happened is that at the 2018 elections the North Carolina compliment of seats in the house of represetatives went 10-3 in favour of Republicans despite the fact that the share of the vote was almost a 50 50 split between Republicans and Democrats.

The Supreme court ruling while it did not officially say sure rigging election boundaries is ok effectively did so by leaving it with state legislatures who are now empowered to rig election boundaries as blatantly as the Republicans did in North Carolina.

At this point as this ruling has further entrenched really the idea that the US is a democracy is a joke.

There are of course lots of things that can be debated and argued over. This however is not one of them. The supreme court have dealt a massive blow against Democracy here. Rigging elections via gerrymandering is wrong end of story no grey area no debate to be had. But here once again the supreme court as they did with citizens united have made it very clear that they have not only no interest in democracy but are in fact openly interested in ensuring that the US becomes a full on banana republic which is a very scary prospect given the US like it or not is the most powerful country on the planet.

Kimsang

Deleted User wrote: »

There are prominent posters who bemoan the electoral college in one thread, and then bemoan the unfairness of the Brexit vote in the other. These opinions are so often not opinions about the systems themselves; they're opinions resulting from the wrong side winning.

As James Lindsay of the "Grievance Studies" hoax puts it

"This is a form of corruption that's political in nature, that's trying to change how we validate ideas, "idea laundering". You have these prejudices and opinions-Start with the right conclusion.... and you can conclude nearly anything as long as its hostile to the right things"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NelsKQQDTxU&fbclid=IwAR3-n1XgLBvEsU1MNSiYPYa_Vv-xVTXAJw1P29NRfPYfhf9yN7TMn2iVf0g

[Deleted User]

Regarding my post about the electoral college which was brought up again in this new thread two pages back, I'd like to add that the UK voting for Brexit is a perfect example of what diverse countries without electoral college-type systems can lead to.

The UK is leaving because of England's population size. That's it really. The votes of Scotland and NI were effectively neutered because you have large swathes of England wanting one thing, while the most affected region, NI, takes the brunt of that vote.

There are prominent posters who bemoan the electoral college in one thread, and then bemoan the unfairness of the Brexit vote in the other. These opinions are so often not opinions about the systems themselves; they're opinions resulting from the wrong side winning. If you want the electoral college to disappear, you are saying that NI's tiny population should be ruled by England's massive population, and there should never be any system in place to help avoid something like Brexit. The mere concept of "all four countries should have needed to vote for Brexit" disappears once you argue that the popular vote knows best.

In the US, Clinton won the popular vote because of LA. She won there by over three million votes. What is more representative of America? Trump winning far more states, or Clinton winning LA by a huge margin? Be honest with yourselves and forget about Trump. Winning far more states is more representative of America.

The entire notion of "the United States" falls apart once the majority of those states become irrelevant in a presidential election. One poster said eight states will have half the population by 2050 I think. Is your disdain for Trump really so strong that you would ironocally support a populist change that would damage politics in the long run? Unfortunately, I think that for most here, yes it is.

Kimsang

"Just imagine you have some concentric circles. You have at the center[fundamentalist group],Outside of them[moderate group] but they want to work within the system. They want to change governments, they want to use democracy against itself. Those two circles arguably are % of entire group"-Sam Harris

Kimsang: Could anyone say the same about the right?

MrFresh wrote: »

Well if you were talking about the right, the centre circle would be white supremacism, nationalism and authoritarianism. People who are willing to use force to exclude and put down minorities. The unfortunate thing for the right is that the centre circle is pretty large.

I agree with the centre-circle of your analogy of the right, although I would argue its absolutely tiny and it seems you agree there is no circle around that? I don't see any mainstream right-wing media that endoreses nazis, authoritarianism or supremacism and they are quick to condone violence. Nationalism is not considered extreme right.

Let's really put this to the test;
I can set you(or anyone else) a way to prove me wrong. Find mainstream right-wing media that doesn't denounce the extremists of the right in a very serious way.
Extremism can include violence or what is alluded to earlier.
Please 'dog-whistling' doesn't count, as proved earlier in the thread.
What I hope to prove is that there is a hysteria from the left that nazis et al, are condoned, when in fact they are not.

Similar related challenge:
Find mainstream left-wing media that opposes the fundamentalists of the left. This can include equality of outcome, anything related to antifa, milkshaking or shutting down of debates/talks at universities. I believe every article you find will 'let the reader decide' and more usually make light of the matter and anyone who opposes these ideologies at best would be called a libertarian more usually far right influencer/far-right/racists/etc..
Or maybe I will be proved wrong, in which case I promise to shut up about this matter

"It isn't really one left. There is an ascendant orthodoxy on the left that is very troubling. There is concentrated mirror image of that on the far right, and both of these things are to be feared. The problem though is when you speak out on a college campus from a perspective on the left that doesn't fit this orthodoxy you are immediately categorized as on the right. Which makes it look as if the left is monolithic and all shares this opinion, which is not the case."

-Brett Weinstein testifying to congress about Everygreen State Riots

"I didn't know what to do with that level of hostility"

"We have to be able to criticize bad ideas"

-Sam Harris

marno21

https://twitter.com/jenniferjjacobs/status/1144523828921372672

I genuinely am curious as to how this line of behavior contributes to Making America Great Again.

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

Whether or not the SC is the place for this to be dealt with it isn't being dealt with anywhere.

We don't know that. Common Cause v Lewis is schedule to be heard in the North Carolina courts two weeks from today. It was only filed in November of 2018, so for much of the duration of the federal case, they had not even tried the State court option.

BluePlanet

Dog Man Star wrote: »

I'm confused as to why some Dems are arguing against an option of private health insurance. Would appreciate an explanation of their argument against government health insurance to exist alongside private health insurance.

I live in Australia. Both exist together very simply. Likewise when I lived in the UK. Eliminating private health seems daft?

Off the top of my head:
It will create a 2 track system.
Private Insurance in the fast lane, Medicare in the slow lane.

Since Medicare will pay less for procedures than Private Insurers, for-profit hospitals will be inclined to grow their revenue by concentrating their services toward the private, while dragging their feet on the public patients.
It's really not that different than the disruption we see here in the HSE.
Private beds vs public ward.

Add-in the massive wealth disparity that exists in the US and i can imagine the same thing exaggerated again.

For-Profit hospitals could also use this model to try and tank support for the public option.

Netherlands, and Germany i believe, stipulate in law that the basic private health insurance plans must operate on a non-profit basis. Additionally their governments also set prices on procedures and regulate the cost of meds.
Things like that will not be on offer in USA.

Brian?

Dog Man Star wrote: »

I'm confused as to why some Dems are arguing against an option of private health insurance. Would appreciate an explanation of their argument against government health insurance to exist alongside private health insurance.

I live in Australia. Both exist together very simply. Likewise when I lived in the UK. Eliminating private health seems daft?

And private only works extremely well in the Netherlands where I live.

I’ve lived in the states and the healthcare costs are exorbitant. Luckily my job paid 100% of my health insurance, which is rare. It’s the lack of regulation and absence of a safety net that have caused a broken system.

peddlelies

Dog Man Star wrote: »

There is no guarantee that Trump will take part in a debate with the Democrat Nominee, and at this time I am 99% certain he will not.

I'm sure the bookies would love to give you some custom. Your previous few 100% and 99% assertions are meaningless and have no weight behind them at all. It's wild speculation and something you'll never be held accountable for so it's very easy to say such things.

PropJoe10

Dog Man Star wrote: »

There is no guarantee that Trump will take part in a debate with the Democrat Nominee, and at this time I am 99% certain he will not. He will throw **** at them, degrade them, lie about them, but I am certain he will not go head to head. The optics of that will destroy him, and he knows that.

Kamala Harris needs to be the Democrats' nomination. She will tear him to bits on or off the record.

Yeah, Harris would destroy him in a debate, no way he'd take that risk. I'd love to see Buttigieg taking him on as well. Been very impressed with him and Harris, whereas Biden and Sanders really seemed like yesterday's news in yesterday's debate.

Dog Man Star

There is no guarantee that Trump will take part in a debate with the Democrat Nominee, and at this time I am 99% certain he will not. He will throw **** at them, degrade them, lie about them, but I am certain he will not go head to head. The optics of that will destroy him, and he knows that.

Kamala Harris needs to be the Democrats' nomination. She will tear him to bits on or off the record.

Harris will tear Putin to bits too.

Dog Man Star

peddlelies wrote: »

(reported said posts don't want to drag off topic).

I was very confident Biden would get the nomination and walk it in 2020 but I'm not anymore after last night. Age has to be a factor there, he didn't seem sharp at all. There was one question where he began mumbling then prematurely told the moderator his time was up. Harris on an intellectual and wits level is miles ahead of him and it showed last night, she nailed him on a few occasions.

A Harris, Trump battle would be fairly intriguing. If she won the nomination, I'd be curious to see if she throws the dirt back in the same weight once Trump starts the inevitable attacks on her.

Not for a minute did I think Biden would win the nomination.

Dog Man Star

I'm confused as to why some Dems are arguing against an option of private health insurance. Would appreciate an explanation of their argument against government health insurance to exist alongside private health insurance.

I live in Australia. Both exist together very simply. Likewise when I lived in the UK. Eliminating private health seems daft?

peddlelies

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe Trump is capable of taking part in a debate. If he participates it will be nothing but childish insults and silly nicknames. Nothing of substance.

His performance in the first debate in 2016 was a terrible embarrassment. He didn't lift a finger to prepare, that's how big his ego is. Second and third he did a little better after getting some coaching from people like Farage but overall not good either, he managed to rattle off some rehearsed soundbites here and there which was a big step up from the first debate but his inability to hit killer blows or clearly explain his political stances still prevailed. ( Ignoring the obvious "you'd be in jail" quip ).

Trump is a strange cat, there's audio clips of him in private where he sounds like a normal person ( no, not referring to the pussytape ), but when he answers questions in interviews his level of coherency and knowledge of the English language comes across as akin to a 10 year old. I genuinely have no idea what's going on there, but it's embarrassing at times.

I think the biggest word he came up with lately was "proportionate", I'd say he's fairly proud of that one.

PropJoe10

Dog Man Star wrote: »

I'm sure the American people get this now. The majority are not stupid. As I said before, Trump will be defeated by a landslide in November next year. Everyone who voted for Trump in November 2016 will vote for him again, but the electorate will beat records, as it did in 2018. Trump will be beaten by some distance, no matter who the Democratic candidate.

I feel that Kamala Harris may win the primary and, although Warren is my choice, I hope Harris does. Trump will be beaten by a huge margin, no question. He has the lowest approval ratings since ratings began, Clinton beat him by 3,000,000 votes. He is done for, no question.

What happens after that is anyone's guess. Of course he will refuse to admit defeat, but I predict his bubble will burst almost immediately and he will rage like a toddler in a supermarket. If he goes to full trial and is jailed, all the better. There is no chance he will win re-election, not a hope in hell.

What's more, it will be decades before the Republicans are voted back in. The white majority becomes a minority mid 2020/30, so this could be the last white supremacists clutch on the US. A fitting one, if it was Trump.

Putin's "Liberalism is dead" remarks yesterday marry up to the realisation that the western world is facing. Oh how Putin wishes it were true, but it isn't. The right wing populist movement is a flash in the pan, and in the US will be buried within 18 months. Putin still has a dictatorship in Russia, but even that is temporary. His time may be coming to an untimely end too. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48674705

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumours of the death of liberal progression have been greatly exaggerated.

I wouldnt be nearly so confident. I do think that the stars aligned in a total fluke situation in 2016 to get him elected, but I don't think the Dems have been particularly coherent so far in getting a concrete message out that will appeal to the mid-west working class swing state areas. I'm hoping that changes as the Democratic field narrows (far too many candidates at the moment) but Trump just seems to have this amazing ability to keep on trucking no matter what he says or no matter what happens.

I also have concerns that he won't be willing to give up the WH if he narrowly loses, but that's another discussion entirely.

[Deleted User]

peddlelies wrote: »

(reported said posts don't want to drag off topic).

I was very confident Biden would get the nomination and walk it in 2020 but I'm not anymore after last night. Age has to be a factor there, he didn't seem sharp at all. There was one question where he began mumbling then prematurely told the moderator his time was up. Harris on an intellectual and wits level is miles ahead of him and it showed last night, she nailed him on a few occasions.

A Harris, Trump battle would be fairly intriguing. If she won the nomination, I'd be curious to see if she throws the dirt back in the same weight once Trump starts the inevitable attacks on her.

I don't believe Trump is capable of taking part in a debate. If he participates it will be nothing but childish insults and silly nicknames. Nothing of substance.