President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marcus said:
I'm hoping his promises were just campaign rhetoric, now it's looking promising. He has walked back "deport the Muslims", is waffling on "Mexicans will pay for the wall", and suddenly is finding things about Obamacare that he likes.

This is one case where I'd rather a politician mot fulfill his campaign promises.
Click to expand...

Its the only case where his supporters (by and large) are hoping he doesn't fulfill his promises.

Frickin bizarre. How many times have we heard "oh, he won't do that".....

:confused:
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yes - the military are citizens too, and a large number of active duty take their oath to defend the constitution pretty seriously. To disarm the populace, Trump would have to use the military... and the military isn't going to follow that order.
Click to expand...

Now you're moving the goalposts again. You talked about an armed populace, not a mutiny by armed forces. I asked you if an armed populace would make a difference. It's twice now that you've avoided answering my question.
 
acbytesla said:
One only need to revisit history to see how easily we will give up our rights. Trump has suggested that Muslims would be required to register with the government. Now, where have we heard that before? Maybe he'll want them to walk around with yellow crescent moon badges?

FYI Emily, That law would violate the first amendment's establishment clause. Are YOU going to stand up against that?
Click to expand...

And by "stand up", we don't mean yap about it on a web forum or sign a change.org petition.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Funny thing on that front... Trump isn't going to be able to become that sort of a fascist unless he takes away the citizenry's right to bear arms - something that his supports absolutely will not tolerate or allow.
Click to expand...

Or maybe his supporters will be using their arms to help consolidate his power. But, I actually doubt that... I hope.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yes.

His supporters are exactly the cohort of people who deeply believe that we have the second amendment in order to defend ourselves from usurpers and tyrants. They firmly believe that it is the duty and obligation of the citizenry to protect themselves from a government that overreaches.

Why would you expect them to meekly support a tyrant overreaching?
Click to expand...
It all depends on who they view as usurpers and tyrants though doesnt it?

Couldn't usurpers and tyrants be viewed as those unpatriotic Americans and foreigners who are against a democratically elected Trump and his mandates as president? Personally I don't think it has a high chance of playing out that way but you cannot say people don't think that way especially with the mentality of the more exteeme Trump supporters. Then you also have the problem of what may happen if Trump does backtrack on some of his more biggoted policies.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yes - the military are citizens too, and a large number of active duty take their oath to defend the constitution pretty seriously. To disarm the populace, Trump would have to use the military... and the military isn't going to follow that order.
Click to expand...

Things can change at lightening speed, under the right circumstances. And the environment just became a bit more hospitable for that type of thing. Maybe more than a bit.
 
Marcus said:
I'm hoping his promises were just campaign rhetoric, now it's looking promising. He has walked back "deport the Muslims", is waffling on "Mexicans will pay for the wall", and suddenly is finding things about Obamacare that he likes.

This is one case where I'd rather a politician mot fulfill his campaign promises.
Click to expand...

I've been saying that I will laugh and laugh if it turns out Trump really is a wildcard and drives Ryan and McConnell up the wall.
 
Marcus said:
Eta: He also likes the pre-existing conditions thing. Without the subsidies though, the rest of the insurance companies will bail.
Click to expand...

He's an idiot for thinking he can cover preexisting conditions without the individual mandate. People will simply refrain from buying coverage until they get sick. Then go to him and say "I've now got this condition, you promised to cover it." Is it any wonder he drove so many businesses into the ground.

Steve S
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yes.

His supporters are exactly the cohort of people who deeply believe that we have the second amendment in order to defend ourselves from usurpers and tyrants. They firmly believe that it is the duty and obligation of the citizenry to protect themselves from a government that overreaches.

Why would you expect them to meekly support a tyrant overreaching?
Click to expand...
Interesting. Where in the 2A is that stated? I can't seem to find it.

Never mind, I think I know the answer*. Plus, it's off topic.





*No the frick where.
 
It is in the part that says "being necessary to the security of a free state". Can't have a free state run by usurpers and tyrants.
 
steve s said:
He's an idiot for thinking he can cover preexisting conditions without the individual mandate. People will simply refrain from buying coverage until they get sick. Then go to him and say "I've now got this condition, you promised to cover it." Is it any wonder he drove so many businesses into the ground.

Steve S
Click to expand...
He has suggested creating high risk pools in the states to cover people with preexisting conditions, subsidized to make the premiums affordable. Unworkable of course, unless you are in favor of exploding the national debt. Unless he meant he wanted the states to pay for it, which would be even crazier.

Emilys Cat, if you are still reading this thread perhaps you could give us the benefit of an actuarial perspective.
 
steve s said:
He's an idiot for thinking he can cover preexisting conditions without the individual mandate. People will simply refrain from buying coverage until they get sick. Then go to him and say "I've now got this condition, you promised to cover it." Is it any wonder he drove so many businesses into the ground.

Steve S
Click to expand...

This in a nutshell is the problem with Trump. He as never thought about this or other issues in detail. I think he wants to be liked more than anything else and maybe shocked by how much people despise him. I do think he genuinely wants to do the right thing, but he is way out of his depth. I'm afraid, he's just going to get run over by the conservative agenda own that Pence seems to be running the show. Out of curiosity, do they have spot for Christie, or are they cutting him loose?

Whether you like Hillary or Bill and their policies they know the healthcare issue in excruciating detail...especially Hillary.
 
Argumemnon said:
But that's how the US form of democracy works. If Clinton had won by the same margin I'm pretty sure no one would be complaining about the EC right now.
Click to expand...

What? If Clinton had won the EC and Trump had won the popular vote, his supporters would certainly be complaining, most vocally led by him.
 
Emily's Cat said:
No they wouldn't. Politicians would only focus on major metropolitan areas - where the population density is highest. It's the biggest bang for their campaign buck. A purely popular vote for the president essentially means that LA and NYC determine how the country is led, with maybe a small bit of input from Chicago, Dallas, DC, and Philadelphia. Unless the entire rest of the US collaboratively fall son the other side, that's where the decision would get made. That might be nice for the democrats though - high density areas tend to be more liberal. Not sure that would be much mollification to Nebraska, Alaska, and the Dakotas though. Nothing like making absolutely certain that their voices don't matter, I guess...
Click to expand...

Wrong. Even with the EC system, the Dems just paid that price... letting one candidate have free rein in districts, counties or states just increases their leads. The Dems gave up on middle class white Pennsylvania in hopes of running up the score in Philly. It was suicide. The hard line dem vote (black, largely) in Philly can only be as strong as the statewide demographic. There are only about 10% of Pennsylvanians who are black. Had Hillary's team not ignored the areas where she dropped 15/20% from Obama's totals - the rust belt areas in the west, she'd have won PA.

Similarly, in a straight popular vote you can double-down in New York City and Los Angeles, but count on the fact that Trump wouldn't have been ignoring them as much as he did. Clinton took NY State by 20%. Cutting that down by half by campaigning and spending money (the GOP spent nothing on Trump in NYS) would give Trump the popular vote.

Of course they'll campaign more heavily where there are more votes. But the guy or gal who gets out her cowboy boots and goes to the rodeo in August in Missoula, walks the range in Abilene or chomps on corn at the fair in Bismark is going to come out 5 to 10 thousand votes to the good in those states. And you do that ten times while your opponent is playing Madison Square Garden more than necessary, and you win the popular vote.

It would give greater attention to the flyover states, not less. You couldn't have a more-dedicated-to-ignore-you system than the first past the post EC system we currently have. Every election cycle X number of battlegrounds get the attention. This year poor old Virginia was left out in the cold. The last few cycles it was a battleground and had campaign visit after campaign visit. Last cycle in 2012, Pennsylvania got largely the same treatment except for a brief spurt when Rove convinced them they had a chance, there.

Presently everybody spends the bulk of their time in OH, FL, NC... add PA for this cycle and now add MI and the rust belt. Ain't no one campaigning in or addressing the local concerns in NY, CA, TX, IL. Big EC counts, but solidly belonging to one or the other. That's the way it works in a winner take all system. The thought that it'd be worse when every vote will actually count is rather absurd. They'd still spend all their money in the big markets, but they'd pay some attention to states they're bound to lose.

As I said... NY State. Trump and the GOP would not have allowed it to go +20 blue. Ditto CA. Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Idaho, etc... The Dems actually have some traditional support in those states. If Hillary or Bill or Biden had showed up there, she might cut their margins from +15 to +12. Do that often enough and you pick up another hundred thousand votes.
 
McHrozni said:
Israeli policy of destroying homes of suicide bombers worked well. I'm certain an even worse policy would work at least as well.



Another effect it would have is to give the families of terrorist great incentive to prevent them from becoming terrorists in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Muslim women, especially in the middle east have a lot of power over men.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom