President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
This is true. But this has got way out of hand. Note that most densely populated area have real needs for social programs and these are inevitably blocked by some Senator from Wyoming or Nebraska.
Click to expand...
You know that a lot of urban areas also have real need for social programs too, right? Most of the breadbasket is very poor, the south is very poor, and there is a real need for support there too - but it's not the same kind of support. Most of the densely populated cities have a really big mix of wealthy and poor - yet they ask for federal monies to support the poor. The rural areas are pretty much only poor, but the densely populated areas seem to always get a larger call on those federal resources because they're bigger.

acbytesla said:
I've always found it interesting that urban areas tend to be liberal, but if you live in the sticks they are terrified of change.
Click to expand...
That's a fairly insulting way to frame it.

I've always found that rural areas tend to be conservative, but if you live in cities they are huge wastrels. :rolleyes:
 
President and CEO Trump:
Trump’s business empire of hotels, golf courses and licensing deals in the U.S. and abroad, some of which have benefited from tax breaks or government subsidies, represents an ethical minefield for a commander in chief who would oversee the U.S. budget and foreign relations, some analysts say.

President-elect Trump will likely take the witness stand in a federal civil trial starting later this month, a first for an incoming president, over claims of fraud at his Trump University real-estate seminar series.

Other Trump companies are partially indebted to banks in Germany and China. On financial disclosure filings, Trump listed involvements in more than 500 companies, some in countries where the U.S. has sensitive diplomatic or financial relationships, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and China.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-presidential-history/?tid=pm_business_pop_b
 
Emily's Cat said:
You know that a lot of urban areas also have real need for social programs too, right? Most of the breadbasket is very poor, the south is very poor, and there is a real need for support there too - but it's not the same kind of support. Most of the densely populated cities have a really big mix of wealthy and poor - yet they ask for federal monies to support the poor. The rural areas are pretty much only poor, but the densely populated areas seem to always get a larger call on those federal resources because they're bigger.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with anything?

As for concentrations of poverty, a lot of cities are very very good at keeping the poor isolated. Just look at how successful state are at getting segregation in their schools by simply drawing school districts right.
 
Argumemnon said:
I prefer the parliamentary system we have in the commonwealth, but the US system is pretty good, too. It's just become bogged down in a number of ways, not the least of which is partisan politics, but I think having the population elect every single branch of government is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about the parliamentary system.

I agree that it's the politics that are the problem. Actually, it's not even that - it's fptp that's the problem. It forces an ever-widening platform for the parties, regardless of the actual wants, needs, and concerns of the citizenry. We just need to scrap the current voting structure and allow either a multiple vote system or a ranked voting system.
 
Ambrosia said:
Don't sweat it. I watched his victory speech, and he sounded more presidential then than at any point in his campaign, so maybe there's a chance that President Trump is better than many of us fear.
Click to expand...

It was a surprisingly good speech.

there have been a few moments during this campaign that have made me step back and wonder a bit. Trump is a showman - he always has been. He knows how to play an audience, he knows how to negotiate. From the perspective of an average person, it's pretty ruthless negotiation... but it's also successful. I end up wondering if his campaign has been mostly show and bluster because that's the anchor point he needs to weaken his opponent's position. I have on occasion wondered if he might be a bit more Machiavellian that I give him credit for.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
We don't know what the popular vote would have looked like without the electoral college, because the fact that if exists heavily informs campaign strategy. Trump put very little focus in California, knowing that there was no way he could surpass 50% of the vote. Similarly, voter turnout was suppressed because a lot of people won't bother voting when they know the candidate they support has zero chance of taking any electoral votes in the state. If it was a popular vote, Trump would have campaigned hard in the state and thousands more would have gone to vote knowing that every vote mattered and it wasn't just a throwaway. Hillary would still have won more than 50% in the state, but not by nearly as large a margin.
Click to expand...

Really good point. There are actually quite a few conservatives in Washington, but the population in the puget sound area is so large and so liberal that a lot of folks in the outlying areas just don't bother. I know that both my spouse and I had the luxury of voting 3rd party the last several elections, simply because we knew that our vote wouldn't change the outcome. We're neither of us conservative exactly, we tend to bounce back and forth based on the issues and the specific candidates. We both liked Obama, although we also really liked McCain up until he picked Palin. Whoever thought that was a good idea really should be punished.
 
NoahFence said:
So what?

The time for outrage and education is over. Ignorance won.
Click to expand...

Huh?

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. If it's that the Post should have discussed Trump's potential conflicts of interest prior to the election, they did. (That's just one example.)

Are you saying that now that Trump's been elected, we should close our eyes and hope for the best?

What is your point?
 
Random said:
Amending the Constitution is not necessary. While the Electoral College is established by the Constitution, it is the state governments that determine how their electoral votes are awarded. Most states go by the winner take all strategy, but if a group of states worth more than 270 electoral votes agreed to give their votes to whoever won the nationwide popular vote, we can have a de facto popular vote for president.
Click to expand...

I'd actually rather see the approach used in NE and Maine. Apportion the votes based on the outcomes in the congressional districts, with the additional 2 going to whoever has the most. It would also allow for an even split in some states.

The approach of "popular vote winner gets all the votes" runs the risk of one small locale with an intense preference drown out everyone else's voice. In particular, California and New York will end up with HUGE sway, and the entire rest of the country will get ignored. Might as well not even vote, I guess.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You know that a lot of urban areas also have real need for social programs too, right? Most of the breadbasket is very poor, the south is very poor, and there is a real need for support there too - but it's not the same kind of support. Most of the densely populated cities have a really big mix of wealthy and poor - yet they ask for federal monies to support the poor. The rural areas are pretty much only poor, but the densely populated areas seem to always get a larger call on those federal resources because they're bigger.


That's a fairly insulting way to frame it.

I've always found that rural areas tend to be conservative, but if you live in cities they are huge wastrels. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It may be insulting but it's true. Change is a constant in the cities. You're inevitably living around different cultures and massive change. It's adapt or die. I'm originally from a small town in Iowa and they are stuck in their ways.

The people in my hometown would give you the shirt off their backs if you if you needed it. But they would be apoplectic if you told them you didn't believe in Jesus or you were gay. I know the big cities and the small towns. I have strong connections to both. They need each other even if they don't want to admit it. But as a big city dweller, I'm sick to death of the hicks from the sticks wielding as much power as they do.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
Quite willing to agree it is harder to parse what we are all saying these days. I have great respect for you and pls don't take my post as harshly as it may have been expressed.
Click to expand...
;) Likewise

Hlafordlaes said:
I think I'll let guns as a topic lie dormant with such a full plate already in this thread.
Click to expand...
Agreed

Hlafordlaes said:
What it means as I intended it is that the dangers of totalitarianism have been crystal clear since WWII, and the US used to know how to teach students about those dangers and make them recognizable in today's guises.
Click to expand...
I suppose I'm just not seeing a need to worry about totalitarianism. Maybe I've become complacent, but I just don't see it.

Hlafordlaes said:
Fair enough. As to the point I was making about this being a different world, here is an article from today on Reuters, a brief read.
Click to expand...
Will check it out.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'd actually rather see the approach used in NE and Maine. Apportion the votes based on the outcomes in the congressional districts, with the additional 2 going to whoever has the most. It would also allow for an even split in some states.

The approach of "popular vote winner gets all the votes" runs the risk of one small locale with an intense preference drown out everyone else's voice. In particular, California and New York will end up with HUGE sway, and the entire rest of the country will get ignored. Might as well not even vote, I guess.
Click to expand...

I don't like that at all. Because it is presently gerrymandeed all to hell.
 
phiwum said:
Huh?

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. If it's that the Post should have discussed Trump's potential conflicts of interest prior to the election, they did. (That's just one example.)

Are you saying that now that Trump's been elected, we should close our eyes and hope for the best?

What is your point?
Click to expand...

Is English your second language?

The article detailed conflicts of interest. These were all common knowledge.

It's too late to educate the population on that. They already said they don't care.
 
Emily's Cat said:
It was a surprisingly good speech.

there have been a few moments during this campaign that have made me step back and wonder a bit. Trump is a showman - he always has been. He knows how to play an audience, he knows how to negotiate. From the perspective of an average person, it's pretty ruthless negotiation... but it's also successful. I end up wondering if his campaign has been mostly show and bluster because that's the anchor point he needs to weaken his opponent's position. I have on occasion wondered if he might be a bit more Machiavellian that I give him credit for.
Click to expand...
I'm under no such illusion. He's playing a role right now, very much in the public eye - which is what he craves. When that fades he'll soon have a hankering for the rally experience, which must have been the greatest buzz of his life. Then we'll see the rabble-rouser again.
 
NoahFence said:
So what?

The time for outrage and education is over. Ignorance won.
Click to expand...
Nothing that impeachment can't take back. Can anyone imagine Trump and his family keeping their fingers out of the till for four whole years?

If Trump disappoints his people it won't be hard to toxify him. At that point he becomes vulnerable to a pro-Pence putsch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom