Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI
Options
Comments
-
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.
Well, the way the college works is that the states elect the president of the (united states). The country is a confederation of states after all.
Think, without the college, candidates would only ever campaign in New York, California and perhaps Texas. The fact is that most states arent swing states and are therefore homogenous to an extent in their political preferences. The college works well in that it gives weight to those states that tend to be in the middle. Otherwise they might as well leave the Union.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »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.
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.
I mean she certainly would have represented the US better on the world stage. She would have worked with congress a lot more. It is had to see her doubling down on her base as much as Trump.
Trump not representing the entire US and the issues in the electoral system are different but unrelated issues. If Trump was elected a he was and had actually attempted to represent anyone outside his core base he would not be accused of not representing the US as much.
I mean the electoral system is obviously flawed and not just because of Trump. I suggest the idea of ecs being done proportionally but I am open to other ideas.0 -
I think a sensible adjustment to the EC, would be to apportion votes based on the percentage won by each candidate. If State A has 5 votes, and the vote is split 60/40, then one candidate would get 3 and the other 2.
Folks are far to quick to disregard the importance of the smaller states imo. They might have smaller populations, but they also supply the majority of food and natural resources, to include water.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
Well, the way the college works is that the states elect the president of the (united states). The country is a confederation of states after all.
Think, without the college, candidates would only ever campaign in New York, California and perhaps Texas. The fact is that most states arent swing states and are therefore homogenous to an extent in their political preferences. The college works well in that it gives weight to those states that tend to be in the middle. Otherwise they might as well leave the Union.
Conversely, because swing states command priority, many candidates do not visit "unimportant", less vital states. I only have a CPD Grey video I can't put my hands on, but I'm confident that many campaigns focus on the swing states, to the detriment of everywhere else. Ohio has basically become weaponised, and I'd argue the reverse is now true to the spirit of the system: swing states commanding attention and become even less representative of the whole, than if it was a purely a popular vote.
2 times in the last 5 cycles is not quite a trend but with America more divided than ever, and gerrymandering showing political systems are being grossly manipulated, then it stands to reason the Electorial College is equally prone to disproportionate results. A system that could have a president theoretically elected on 22% of the popular vote feels brittle.0 -
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?
The answer is that there’s a difference between desegregation and forced integration. Since the Supreme Court decision Brown V Topeka in the 1950s, schools are no longer legally segregated. This doesnt mean that there weren’t still black majority schools in black majority areas and visa versa. Bussing may have been a step too far as it was essentially forced integration. ie. children from black majority schools and white majority schools had to be bussed into different areas and different schools. Obviously this is problematic in that parents actually like choosing a school for their kids. Also it led to alot of white flight from certain areas. In my opinion, the government has a duty to prevent legally mandated segregation but forcing racially balance in every school was an unwarranted incursion that led to unintended consequences.0 -
Advertisement
-
The answer is that there’s a difference between desegregation and forced integration. Since the Supreme Court decision Brown V Topeka in the 1950s, schools are no longer legally segregated. This doesnt mean that there weren’t still black majority schools in black majority areas and visa versa. Bussing may have been a step too far as it was essentially forced integration. ie. children from black majority schools and white majority schools had to be bussed into different areas and different schools. Obviously this is problematic in that parents actually like choosing a school for their kids. Also it led to alot of white flight from certain areas. In my opinion, the government has a duty to prevent legally mandated segregation but forcing racially balance in every school was an unwarranted incursion that led to unintended consequences.
Forciung racial balance, yes perhaps not. But this notion that segregration nolonger exists because it's illegal is also incorrect.
There are parallel communities, black towns near white towns. Jobs black people do and jobs white people do in some areas. People speak differently.
Simply ending segregation and saying 'well technically a black kid can now win a scholarship to Harvard' is not enough to repair the historic injustice done.
You should fund the hell out of services and particularly education in some areas. That would be a better move than forced integration.0 -
The point of representation is to represent People, not Land Area.
Fast forward 50 years and you'll see an even more glaring democratic deficit as people continue to migrate toward cities and rural areas continue to depopulate. At some point the rationalization of representing "states" rather than "people" becomes entirely bankrupt.
Right now the democratic deficit in USA is in the low millions, what happens when it's 50 million or 100 million?
Revolution?0 -
Conversely, because swing states command priority, many candidates do not visit "unimportant", less vital states. I only have a CPD Grey video I can't put my hands on, but I'm confident that many campaigns focus on the swing states, to the detriment of everywhere else. Ohio has basically become weaponised, and I'd argue the reverse is now true to the spirit of the system: swing states commanding attention and become even less representative of the whole, than if it was a purely a popular vote.
2 times in the last 5 cycles is not quite a trend but with America more divided than ever, and gerrymandering showing political systems are being grossly manipulated, then it stands to reason the Electorial College is equally prone to disproportionate results. A system that could have a president theoretically elected on 22% of the popular vote feels brittle.
Just because candidates don’t visit a state doesnt mean it isn’t vital. No one would suggest California isnt a vital state for the democrats or that Texas isnt a vital state for republicans. The fact that Ohio is a swing state simply means that Ohio isnt predominantly democrat or predominantly republican, therefore it makes sense for candidates to campaign there. More sense than it would make for a democrat to campaign in California or a republican to campaign in Texas (although some say Texas could become a purple state in the future) This doesnt diminish the importance of these states to the respective parties. In theory any state can become a swing state based on the predominant political demographics of the citizens living there. The electoral map in fifty years is likely to be alot different than today just as it looked different fifty years ago. Remember California was once a Republican state. I fail to see how the system needs to be evened out.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
I posted it before, and it's a long shot but a number of mostly democrat states have signed up to a "Compact", to agree that they would hand the Electorial votes to whichever candidate won the popular vote for that state.
As said it's mostly a democrat initiative, and still needs a few states to bring it to the 270 that officially gets one the presidency (ATM the number of states signed up totals about 210, 220). Getting rid of the Electorial College altogether is unlikely, but this feels like it has a "better" chance of happening. 538 ran an interesting article speculating as to what states might join the Compact, and the odds of more Red or Purple states joining0 -
BluePlanet wrote: »The point of representation is to represent People, not Land Area.
Fast forward 50 years and you'll see an even more glaring democratic deficit as people continue to migrate toward cities and rural areas continue to depopulate. At some point the rationalization of representing "states" rather than "people" becomes entirely bankrupt.
Right now the democratic deficit in USA is in the low millions, what happens when it's 50 million or 100 million?
Revolution?
Land area doesnt matter in the electoral college. States are allocated electoral votes based on the amount of representatives they have in Congress which is based on population.
Alaska has a massive land area and still very few electoral college votes.0 -
Advertisement
-
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, weird 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.
I fully expected a little crazy. I didn't expect pandering to this extent.
Or Booker trying to out Hispanic Beto..!
Or tax-payer funded abortions ..... for men!
Or universal unchallenged endorsement of government healthcare of illegal immigrants.
Or the pathology of Harris....(Guilt by association)“Well guess what?” Biden continued. “At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.”
It seems a race to the bottom, an olympics of who is the most oppressed.0 -
Forciung racial balance, yes perhaps not. But this notion that segregration nolonger exists because it's illegal is also incorrect.
There are parallel communities, black towns near white towns. Jobs black people do and jobs white people do in some areas. People speak differently.
Simply ending segregation and saying 'well technically a black kid can now win a scholarship to Harvard' is not enough to repair the historic injustice done.
You should fund the hell out of services and particularly education in some areas. That would be a better move than forced integration.
Legal attempts to curb “De Facto” segregation still have all sorts of unintended consequences.
It’s a relatively short time since desegration took place. Obviously there will be a “shadow effect” for perhaps two generations or more. The government had a duty to remove the sytemic legal barriers and that has been accompished. Any further intervention is just a government sponsored social engineering project which although well intentioned has unintended consequences such as the white flight from urban areas, lack of school choice. Need one even start on the absurdity of “Affirmative Action”?0 -
Trump's G20 press conference was the usual rambling guff, but one thing he said made me laugh out loud.
When talking about the China tariffs he imposed, he bragged about giving the farmers handouts of $16,000,000,000 but then he gave a real window into his soul. About the US farmers, he stressed: "They're unusual. I had 'em around a table, many of the farmers. And...about five weeks ago, and they said "we don't want money, we want just a level playing field."
Trump reiterated again how unusual he thought that was.
Trump finds it so strange that farmers would rather earn money fairly and from doing their jobs, rather than just taking money from wherever it comes from. Of course, made all the more poignant in that Trump has removed the level playing field they once had.
Occasionally off-script, Trump accidentally says something he actually believes, and without fail those moments are the most disturbing.0 -
Think, without the college, candidates would only ever campaign in New York, California and perhaps Texas. The fact is that most states arent swing states and are therefore homogenous to an extent in their political preferences. The college works well in that it gives weight to those states that tend to be in the middle. Otherwise they might as well leave the Union.
They have representation skewed in their favour but somewhat proportional in the House, and they have massively skewed representation in the Senate. The very fact that Mitch McConnell has carte blanche to ignore the Democratic majority of the House and has successfully stolen a Supreme Court seat off the back of being elected from Kentucky clearly demonstrates how much power smaller states can wield.
If every individual had a vote of equal value, then it's absurd to suggest they would only campaign in New York and California. Every single vote would have equal value.
What you'd probably see is that Conservatives would have their campaigning weighted towards the cities, and Democrats towards more rural areas, because those are where they stand to make the greatest gains respectively, but even so, ultimately they'd need to speak to everyone because they all have equal weight.
Campaigning and where you do it isn't important anyway. That's very much not being able to see the wood for the trees. What's important is policy, and implementing it.
The reason rallies exist isn't because they're useful to everyone else, but because they're useful to candidates.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
I don't know why journalists insist on asking politicians about tangential happenings beyond their radius, presumably just to feed the 24 hour cycle; it did throw up this hilarious golden nugget during questions at the g20, Trump asked what he thought of Bussing as a policy.
Now, to be fair, I hadn't heard of Bussing either til Harris broadsided Biden, but this is the sitting President of the United States. An ... expectation that he knows the key pillars of recent, controversial history isn't unreasonable.
https://www.twitter.com/EliStokols/status/1144872511240200192
"Asked again about busing, Trump says: "It has been something that they've done for a long period of time. There aren't that many ways of getting people to schools.""0 -
The House isnt somewhat proportional to population, it is proportional to population. As for the Senate, the whole point is that every state has equal representation. The thinking behind this if you’ve read the Federalist Papers or Democracy in America by DeTocqueville is that no measure ought to be able to pass unless it has widespread support from around the country. ie. The House makes sure the majority of population are in favor and the Senate ensures the majority of states are in favor, regardless of their respective populations. There is a completely rational fear of the tyranny of the simple majority where by the 51% can cram down their views on the other 49%. The system is designed to mitigate against this.They have representation skewed in their favour but somewhat proportional in the House, and they have massively skewed representation in the Senate. .
When it comes to Supreme Court nominations, the job of the Senate as set out in the constitution is to “advise and consent”. The Republicans had no obligation to consent to Obama’s nominee. “Cocaine Mitch” had the votes to do it. Tough luck on the Democrats.The very fact that Mitch McConnell has carte blanche to ignore the Democratic majority of the House and has successfully stolen a Supreme Court seat off the back of being elected from Kentucky clearly demonstrates how much power smaller states can wield.
.
Whether or not candidates campaigned there, the point is that the people there would probably still decide the election, since people in large urban areas tend to be homogenous in their politics. Again you’re missing the point of the electoral college which is that the states elect the president. Each state is allocated influence proportional to it’s population and the state’s legislatures decide how those votes are allocated. The majority of state legislatures opt for the electoral college.If every individual had a vote of equal value, then it's absurd to suggest they would only campaign in New York and California. Every single vote would have equal value..
I honestly don’t understand the argument that the system is skewed one way or the other. Especially when you consider that since FDR, the presidency essentially alternates between a Republican and a Democrat every 8 years with the exception of Carter, Ford and H.W Bush who were one-term presidents and all three were suceeded by someone from the opposite party.
The introduction of term limits basically solved the problem of one party hanging onto the presidency forever.0 -
There is a completely rational fear of the tyranny of the simple majority where by the 51% can cram down their views on the other 49%. The system is designed to mitigate against this.
And instead what you see is the opposite: a minority cramming their views on the majority. I don't know on what planet that could conceiveably be seen as better. Only a cynical one where you happen to be the one benefitting from it.Whether or not candidates campaigned there, the point is that the people there would probably still decide the election, since people in large urban areas tend to be homogenous in their politics. Again you’re missing the point of the electoral college which is that the states elect the president. Each state is allocated influence proportional to it’s population and the state’s legislatures decide how those votes are allocated. The majority of state legislatures opt for the electoral college.
They wouldn't decided the election anymore than any other group of people. If they're the largest voting block then they should have the strongest voice. That's the point.
Any concern for the tyranny of the majority is rendered nonsense because we're currently seeing a tyranny of the minority with the electoral college propping up an oligarch class that are dismantling the systems of democracy, checks on power and making a mockery of the rule of law.
The constitution, the SCOTUS, devolved powers at the state level and the senate are all checks on that concern anyway. That's what they're there for. You don't hamstring Democracy so that it acheives the opposite of what was intended.I honestly don’t understand the argument that the system is skewed one way or the other. Especially when you consider that since FDR, the presidency essentially alternates between a Republican and a Democrat every 8 years with the exception of Carter, Ford and H.W Bush who were one-term presidents and all three were suceeded by someone from the opposite party.
Because the Republican party don't represent half the American population. In 3 of the last 4 of their victorious presidential campaigns they have lost the elections' popular votes and will almost certainly lose the next. The demographic shifts are being ignored by the system and whole swathes of the population are completely disenfranchised at the executive level.0 -
-
With regard to the Congress, if you need more than a simple majority to get anything done, then how does a minority exert outsized power? A substantial minority has power in that they can merely preserve the status quo against large radical change provided their minority is not too small. Again this is the whole point. The Founders specifically designed a system in which there would be inevitable gridlock unless a proposed measure had widespread support. If you bothered to learn a thing about American civics rather than just blabbing ad nauseum on boards about how it’s unfair by the standards of different countries with DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONS, designed for different purposes, you’d understand this.And instead what you see is the opposite: a minority cramming their views on the majority. I don't know on what planet that could conceiveably be seen as better. Only a cynical one where you happen to be the one benefitting from it.
Oligarchy? The Republicans? It baffles me when people assert that Trump is taking steps towards installing a dicatorship. Balance of powers is working absolutely fine. Case in point, the Muslim ban which was struck down by the courts and the fact that he hasnt a hope of passing any substantial legislation for the rest of his term because his party lost the mid-terms.They wouldn't decided the election anymore than any other group of people. If they're the largest voting block then they should have the strongest voice. That's the point.
Any concern for the tyranny of the majority is rendered nonsense because we're currently seeing a tyranny of the minority with the electoral college propping up an oligarch class that are dismantling the systems of democracy, checks on power and making a mockery of the rule of law.
As for the Russia/Obstruction stuff. No. 1 He can’t be charged in Office.
No. 2 Mueller said there was insufficent evidence to prosecute conspiracy with Russia,
No. 3 He also said if Dems want to impeach on Obstruction they can go right ahead. He basically openly admitted the purpose his investigation was not to determine if a prosecution could occur on obstruction but to tee up the ball for Congress to impeach, although that’s gonna be hard with Cocaine Mitch holding the Senate.Because the Republican party don't represent half the American population. In 3 of the last 4 of their victorious presidential campaigns they have lost the elections' popular votes and will almost certainly lose the next. The demographic shifts are being ignored by the system and whole swathes of the population are completely disenfranchised at the executive level.
You’re assessment of the Electoral College as unfair is predicated on the notion that the College’s decision is supposed to reflect the majority or whatever the demographic trend happens to be.
It’s not.
This is my third time explaining this, I’ve been ignored each time so perhaps take note.
The United States is one country but it is not one state. It is a country composed of a confederation of states. Hence the United STATES. Ireland is one country and also one state. We elect our president based on a popular vote.
In the United States the people DO NOT elect the president, THE STATES DO. This is the most important point that you completely forgot to address in your response. The constitution states that states are allocated votes in the electoral college based how many representatives they have at Congress which is proportional to population. Then the State Legislatures in each state decide how those votes are allocated in each election. The majority of legislatures decide to give all of the votes to whoever gets the most votes in that state. A legislature doesnt have to do this if it doesnt want to. Certain states have decided to give their votes to the nation wide popular vote winner. However not enough states have done this to make up the 270 votes needed to elect a president.
The idea that a candidate can win the Electoral College without winning the popular vote is not a new concept that has only arisen in recent election cycles. After all, Abraham Lincoln didn’t win the popular vote.
Critique the electoral college all you want, but you can’t just completely ignore the fact that it is the right of the states to decide how their votes are distributed.0 -
G20 went as forecasted, only worse. The worst moment from the catalogue was certainly Trump's off-mike conversation with Putin about rogue journalists, which showed Trump to be spectacularly naive among the 200 critical journalists of Putin who have been murdered.
I'll say that again, 200 journalists murdered by Putin.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is my last prediction on the 2020 election. Every statement here is a fact, not an opinion.
1. Trump won by 144,000 votes in total in the swing states in 2016
2. The mid-terms was a landslide Democratic wave
3. Black/Hispanic/Women/LGBT have never been so motivated to vote against Trump
4. Trump's base has not expanded at all since 2016 and stands at 36%
5. There are 20 democratic candidates all unified in their objective for the 2020 election
As facts stand, Trump will be voted out by an overwhelming majority in November 2020, at least 8%, statistically realistic 15%
Once out, he will immediately be arrested a la Roger Stone and face a criminal trial.
Facts matter.0 -
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.
I don't think that the conclusions here are correct. The SCOTUS decision says that the Federal Courts are not the place to have issues around partisan gerrymandering resolved. Rather, such matters, to the extent that they give rise to a democratic deficit, should be dealt with at State level, where State Courts including State Supreme Courts can assess the resulting maps etc against the States' Constitution. It should be noted that the NC Supreme Court has a 6-1 liberal leaning, so if anything, the fact that the SCOTUS has opted the Feds out of the decision making process is bad news for Rep gerrymandering efforts, and not good news. It now really boils down to how explicit is the NC State Constitution in relation to ensuring fairness.0 -
Dog Man Star wrote: »This is my last prediction on the 2020 election. Every statement here is a fact, not an opinion.
1. Trump won by 144,000 votes in total in the swing states in 2016
2. The mid-terms was a landslide Democratic wave
3. Black/Hispanic/Women/LGBT have never been so motivated to vote against Trump
4. Trump's base has not expanded at all since 2016 and stands at 36%
5. There are 20 democratic candidates all unified in their objective for the 2020 election
As facts stand, Trump will be voted out by an overwhelming majority in November 2020, at least 8%, statistically realistic 15%
Once out, he will immediately be arrested a la Roger Stone and face a criminal trial.
Facts matter.
We can only hope.
He will go down as the worst American president ever.0 -
Cody montana wrote: »We can only hope.
He will go down as the worst American president ever.
No question about that. The famed founding fathers never assumed at one time there would be a President actively working against the American Citizens.0 -
There are still at least five Trump supporters in this thread. Their ignorance knows no bounds. One of them is an Irish stooge in a US Army.
A trussed-up Paddy fighting for a government that would deport hundreds of thousands of Irish Americans without a glimmer of humanity.
Yet here he is. Question him and face a ban. My advice? Don't bother. In a thread about Trump, he goes off on so many tangents, it's not worth even reading.0 -
Dog Man Star wrote: »This is my last prediction on the 2020 election. Every statement here is a fact, not an opinion.
1. Trump won by 144,000 votes in total in the swing states in 2016
2. The mid-terms was a landslide Democratic wave
3. Black/Hispanic/Women/LGBT have never been so motivated to vote against Trump
4. Trump's base has not expanded at all since 2016 and stands at 36%
5. There are 20 democratic candidates all unified in their objective for the 2020 election
As facts stand, Trump will be voted out by an overwhelming majority in November 2020, at least 8%, statistically realistic 15%
Once out, he will immediately be arrested a la Roger Stone and face a criminal trial.
Facts matter.
Wrong. Donald Trump will win.0 -
Cody montana wrote: »We can only hope.
He will go down as the worst American president ever.
James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, I could go on, all were worse than Donald Trump.0 -
Dog Man Star wrote: »There are still at least five Trump supporters in this thread. Their ignorance knows no bounds. One of them is an Irish stooge in a US Army.
A trussed-up Paddy fighting for a government that would deport hundreds of thousands of Irish Americans without a glimmer of humanity.
Yet here he is. Question him and face a ban.
Who is he? I’d like to shake this fine gentleman’s hand.0 -
I don't know why journalists insist on asking politicians about tangential happenings beyond their radius, presumably just to feed the 24 hour cycle; it did throw up this hilarious golden nugget during questions at the g20, Trump asked what he thought of Bussing as a policy.
Now, to be fair, I hadn't heard of Bussing either til Harris broadsided Biden, but this is the sitting President of the United States. An ... expectation that he knows the key pillars of recent, controversial history isn't unreasonable.
https://www.twitter.com/EliStokols/status/1144872511240200192
"Asked again about busing, Trump says: "It has been something that they've done for a long period of time. There aren't that many ways of getting people to schools.""
The most egregious aspect of this is that busing was such a key and often inflammatory element in the history of the Civil Rights movement since the 1950s. ANY President who doesn't know or understand the nuances around that can have no feel for how non-white Americans have lived. Such ignorance of racially charged matters is unforgivable in a POTUS.0 -
Advertisement
-
Manic Moran's most recent post on the DONALD TRUMP thread:
"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."
Yes, total nonsense again.
How he has not been banned is beyond me. His posts are never relevant, rarely true and typically a distraction from what we have been dicussing.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement