President Trump

[Belz...]

But I agree that Trump selling himself as a anti Elitist might be the biggest Con Job in the history of Con Jobs.

I hate that guy. I liked his brother Steve better.

 

[alfaniner]

I think "Godwin"-ing a thread will soon be superseded by them being "Trump"ed.

 

[acbytesla]

Gee ,logger, has forgotten how much Dubya was hated.....

I have no doubt if you polled world leaders on who was better, Obama or W, Obama would win. But that is anecdotal. Most of our allies are terrified of Trump at the moment. Putin and Assad are happly campers, but my guess is they are the exceptions. That saId, there is often a disconnect between campaign rhetoric and actual policy. So everyone is taking a wait and see attitude.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But he's keeping the guys that hired the lobbyists.

That is his business genius, he is cutting lobbyists out as middlemen.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not assuming anything. I've told you this several times already. If you repeat this accusation again I will have to assume that you are being dishonest. I am arguing that whether the population is armed to begin with makes no difference. You argue otherwise. Fine.



WHERE DO I ASSUME THIS? Where the **** do you get this in my posts? I've told you repeatedly that this has nothing to do with my line of argument.

(sorry for the exasperation, but I'm getting tired of you saying this after so many explanations by me)

Why doesn't ISF have a "hug" smiley?

I feel your exasperation. I think I've said it before, but if not... clearly you and I have very different styles of communication. It seems that neither of us is very good at expressing our thoughts in a way that the other can accurately consume.

 

[Darat]

Why doesn't ISF have a "hug" smiley?

...snip....

 

[Emily's Cat]

Shouldn't you just cut to the chase and go by the popular national vote? The electoral college does seem to me to be an anachronism, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist any more.

I don't think the problem doesn't exist anymore. We have a very large geographic area, with a relatively small amount of it being very densely populated. We have large variations in culture throughout that land mass.

For the sake of illustration, can you imagine the EU deciding that any votes will be done based solely on the population across the entire EU? That ends up meaning that smaller countries have no say at all, all of their decisions end up being made by much larger countries, and it risks that those decisions aren't in the best interests of their country, their culture, or their people.

It's the same thing. Yes, the US is one country, but we're a federation of states, and a significant amount of the governance still resides at the state level. While I agree that the whole-scale all-or-nothing approach currently used for electoral votes is too extreme, I don't currently support abandoning it all-together. There are other, different risks with using the popular vote alone.

ETA: This year is actually a pretty good example. If you look at the popular vote distributions by state, you can see that CA had a really disproportionate effect. CA had by far the largest % difference than any other state, and has a large population. It would be possible under a purely popular vote for all fo the other states to have a moderately close race, with Candidate A in the lead, and CA all by itself to have a strong preference for Candidate B. Regardless of the fact that the rest of the country prefers Candidate A, Candidate B would end up winning based on the preference of one small region.

 

[Spindrift]

There are other, different risks with using the popular vote alone.

What risks?

Why should land be more important than people?

Popular vote is okay on a state level, why isn't it okay at the Federal level?

 

[Belz...]

Why doesn't ISF have a "hug" smiley?

I feel your exasperation. I think I've said it before, but if not... clearly you and I have very different styles of communication. It seems that neither of us is very good at expressing our thoughts in a way that the other can accurately consume.

Ok I say we take a break from this discussion and come back to it in 4 years.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The German military had nothing to do with the Kristallnacht. It was organised by the Nazi Party and executed largely by its paramilitary forces (SA and SS) and the police, though civilians also participated.

The German army was never used to any significant degree to establish or maintain the power of the Nazi party in Germany. It was also involved in the Holocaust at the periphery only (though the Wehrmacht commited plenty of other crimes). The Nazis were voted into power in free elections; at any point before Hitler took over, his dictatorship could have been prevented simply by voting the Nazis out. However once in power, Hitler and his party consolidated their power very quickly. At that point the civil police and the Nazi paramilitary forces would prevent any dissent by force. After a couple of months there was no more opportunity to speak up against the Nazis.

Dummy question: what's the difference between military and paramilitary?

Another Dummy Question: Did the German President have control of the Police forces? My understanding is that the states control their own police forces, some of them are even at the county and city level. They're not run by the federal government. The FBI might be the closest thing to a "national" police force that the US has.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think the problem doesn't exist anymore. We have a very large geographic area, with a relatively small amount of it being very densely populated. We have large variations in culture throughout that land mass.

For the sake of illustration, can you imagine the EU deciding that any votes will be done based solely on the population across the entire EU? That ends up meaning that smaller countries have no say at all, all of their decisions end up being made by much larger countries, and it risks that those decisions aren't in the best interests of their country, their culture, or their people.

It's the same thing. Yes, the US is one country, but we're a federation of states, and a significant amount of the governance still resides at the state level. While I agree that the whole-scale all-or-nothing approach currently used for electoral votes is too extreme, I don't currently support abandoning it all-together. There are other, different risks with using the popular vote alone.

ETA: This year is actually a pretty good example. If you look at the popular vote distributions by state, you can see that CA had a really disproportionate effect. CA had by far the largest % difference than any other state, and has a large population. It would be possible under a purely popular vote for all fo the other states to have a moderately close race, with Candidate A in the lead, and CA all by itself to have a strong preference for Candidate B. Regardless of the fact that the rest of the country prefers Candidate A, Candidate B would end up winning based on the preference of one small region.

As opposed to how it is now where someone in wyoming is 3 times the american that those damn californians are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You don't even know what color I am, what different races are apart of me or if I'm queer. You blow out these ridiculous emotional posts that are supposed to paint me as some sort of racist or bigot?

Argumemnon, when you spout things like this, how am I supposed to have a reasonable argument with you?

Respond in kind so I can buy a yellow card or suspension?

I told you in another thread, reasonable arguments cannot be made with hard leftists, it usually ends up in them posting insults.

I'm not convinced that your arguments so far have been reasonable.

 

[dudalb]

Dummy question: what's the difference between military and paramilitary?

Another Dummy Question: Did the German President have control of the Police forces? My understanding is that the states control their own police forces, some of them are even at the county and city level. They're not run by the federal government. The FBI might be the closest thing to a "national" police force that the US has.

Paramilitary is one of those terms that has a number of meanings.
Broadly it means an organization that is organized and ran as like a military organization, but is not officially part of the Military. This can cover a multitude of sins;from Police SWAT teams which whose organization and training are closer to the Army than to normal Police training because of their mission to a munch of "Miltia" morons running around in Camos and playing soldier.
I think Germany is like the US:Most Police Forces are locally controlled, with a few operating on the Federal level;GSG-9,the famous Anti Terrorist unit, as an example of a Federally controlled unit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's nothing emotional about it. You're drunk with power right now, but you don't seem to realise, don't care, or agree with the fact that the right in the US have historically curtailed the rights of women and minorities and have resisted much-needed change.

Problem is that less than a century ago, it was the democrats who were curtailing the rights of minorities and women. It's not so clear as "one side good other side bad". US politics is absurdly messy and inconsistent.

 

[Stacko]

And we are going to bring back the house unamerican activities commission to get the Muslim Brotherhood out of the government.

So, you're saying Keith Ellison is going to have the most miserable next four years out of all of congress?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just so you know, your kind is outnumbered.

I don't think it's as outnumbered as you think it is. I'm not even sure it is outnumbered. The two sides are, and have been for quite some time, fairly equal. There's a bit of shift from year to year, but that's mostly due to the very large number of people who sit very happily in the middle.

ETA: Who you callin' "you people"?!?!!

 

[Emily's Cat]

I can;t find those, how do I find those?! I've been sitting in a dearth of smileys for three years now!

 

[Emily's Cat]

What risks?

Why should land be more important than people?

Popular vote is okay on a state level, why isn't it okay at the Federal level?

People are important. That's part of the point.

Do you think that people in California and New York are more important than people in Idaho? Or do you assume that cultural differences, as well as different environments, needs, weather, etc. aren't important?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ok I say we take a break from this discussion and come back to it in 4 years.

You got a deal!

 

[ponderingturtle]

People are important. That's part of the point.

Do you think that people in California and New York are more important than people in Idaho? Or do you assume that cultural differences, as well as different environments, needs, weather, etc. aren't important?

Exactly people in Wyoming really are 3 times as important as the californians.