President Trump

[The Great Zaganza]

Here's my next prediction (which I'm terrible at, but it makes me feel good): Mattis is the first cabinet member fired, because he will speak truth to power, early and often.

Here is my next prediction: to compensate for the stress, Trump will "move on an Intern 'like a bitch'" - I'm sure he had fantasies about this every since he so vocally defended Bill Clinton.

 

[Spindrift]

Here is my next prediction: to compensate for the stress, Trump will "move on an Intern 'like a bitch'" - I'm sure he had fantasies about this every since he so vocally defended Bill Clinton.

Does sound more plausible than my prediction.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Of course they do, alaskans are more important than Texans for the same reason that people in wyoming are 3.5 times more american than californians.

Just like Maltese have around 10X the voice of Germans in the European Parliament.


In the US, each state has 2 votes in Senate, representing the rights of the states to govern themselves as independent entities in many things. In the EU Council has one representative from each member country, representing the right of those countries to govern themselves in many things. Both reflect that each member state has a different history and culture, may have different levels of taxation and varied policies toward the common good, and to some degree may have differing laws even though most of them are shared.

In the US, each state has proportional seats in the House of Representatives, based on the population of the states. It's step function, since you can't have partial representatives, but it's pretty close. In the EU Parliament, it's a degressive representation - smaller countries have more representatives per capita than larger countries.

In the US, the electoral votes for President are distributed based on the aggregate number of Senate and House seats. Smaller states end up with a slightly higher vote per capita, because the 2 Senate seats are spread over a smaller populace. But they're relatively close to population.

You're complaining about Wyoming having 3.5X the power of CA in the election. Malta has more than 10X the power of Germany in EU.

Do you think it would make sense for Malta to end up permanently governed at the whim of Germany in the EU? Do you think that Germany would act in the interest of the citizens of Malta? Do you believe that because Germany has more people and is bigger, they should be allowed to dictate EU policy without consideration for the differing culture, national policies, and histories of the other member countries? Would that seem fair to you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

But their number one priority was making sure that Obama was a one term president.

After they failed at that they needed to make sure he couldn't get anything done.

What is the current democratic party priority regarding Trump? Is it different? Are they planning on being good team players?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure they are. They all depend on some form of evidence unless the allegation is that the neighbors dog told me that Hillary is running a sex dungeon for cats out of a gyro shop.

Just to be clear... this means that if a person is alleged to have committed a crime, that allegation constitutes evidence that they committed a crime according to you.

Allegations are not evidence, they are accusations. Go use a dictionary.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You're complaining about Wyoming having 3.5X the power of CA in the election. Malta has more than 10X the power of Germany in EU.

Yes, we do intentionally weaken the equality of votes to promote Federalism.
This is usually a good thing, but we must not kid ourselves about the fact that we are sacrificing democracy for unity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, it's very easy. Entering without permission is trespassing. You don't have to tell them to get out, you don't have to tell them they can't come in, the door does not have to be locked, it's still trespassing. It's not up to the victim to tell the perpetrator not to commit a crime.

You know, there was a similar topic a while back with respect to a 30-something person who was having sex with a 16 yo, in a state where the age of consent was 16. The argument put forth at that time was that if you haven't specifically told a person that they aren't welcome in your home, then it shouldn't be considered trespassing.

This seems to be the complete opposite interpretation. I don't think you were involved in that prior discussion. I'm curious, I might compare who is arguing which perspective here compared to there

 

[Cavemonster]

Just like Maltese have around 10X the voice of Germans in the European Parliament.


In the US, each state has 2 votes in Senate, representing the rights of the states to govern themselves as independent entities in many things. In the EU Council has one representative from each member country, representing the right of those countries to govern themselves in many things. Both reflect that each member state has a different history and culture, may have different levels of taxation and varied policies toward the common good, and to some degree may have differing laws even though most of them are shared.

In the US, each state has proportional seats in the House of Representatives, based on the population of the states. It's step function, since you can't have partial representatives, but it's pretty close. In the EU Parliament, it's a degressive representation - smaller countries have more representatives per capita than larger countries.

In the US, the electoral votes for President are distributed based on the aggregate number of Senate and House seats. Smaller states end up with a slightly higher vote per capita, because the 2 Senate seats are spread over a smaller populace. But they're relatively close to population.

You're complaining about Wyoming having 3.5X the power of CA in the election. Malta has more than 10X the power of Germany in EU.

Do you think it would make sense for Malta to end up permanently governed at the whim of Germany in the EU? Do you think that Germany would act in the interest of the citizens of Malta? Do you believe that because Germany has more people and is bigger, they should be allowed to dictate EU policy without consideration for the differing culture, national policies, and histories of the other member countries? Would that seem fair to you?

I think there's a real difference between US states and countries on a great number of levels. I also think there's a real difference between the power EU decisions hold over member countries and the power the executive office holds in the US.

If the US were more a loose federation of more independent states legally, culturally and historically separated in their interests and the executive office did not have veto rights over any legislation, and the role as commander in chief of the most powerful army in the world, then I'd be more in favor of a method of counting states' votes like we have today. If states could leave the US as easily as the UK just left the EU, then I might feel differently.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

As it stands, states are not nations in a thousand relevant distinctions, the executive branch is not the EU and my aunt does not have balls.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If the alleged victim is willing to testify in court as to the allegations, it is evidence.

Only once they've actually testified. Even then, their testimony alone doesn't usually constitute evidence in and of itself, does it? That whole 'one person's word against another's' generally fails to cross the threshold of proof. Doesn't there generally need to be additional evidence that supports the testimony given?

 

[NoahFence]

Just to be clear... this means that if a person is alleged to have committed a crime, that allegation constitutes evidence that they committed a crime according to you.

Allegations are not evidence, they are accusations. Go use a dictionary.

Tell that to the sycophants that railed against Hillary.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Litigation can accomplish several purposes. Not all lawsuits are winnable, nor are they all intended to be won. Good lawyers know all this.

Is this the group that filed the lawsuit against him on the grounds that his business holdings were unconstitutional? It will be interesting to follow. My guess is it will be dismissed on standing grounds. However, that is just a guess, or perhaps a tiny bit more. I like following cases like that one, though. I find it fascinating to read the legal reasoning employed.

Weren't there suits filed against Obama with the argument that he wasn't a US citizen?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you think that the fashion show contestants whose dressing rooms he bragged about being able to barge in on at will were all Trump groupies?

I didn't say they were all groupies. Not even close.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You keep implying Obama issued fewer EOs only in comparison to recent presidents or since WW2. But the list that was linked shows he issued the fewest of any president for the past 100+ years. I am a registered Democrat and the context here is, Obama has repeatedly been accused of using EOs in a way few presidents have. Almost to the point where it became dictatorial. That Obama was trying to usurp the powers of Congress through the use of EOs. If that was true I would be greatly concerned and very disappointed in Barack Obama. Only it's not true yet some people -- and I don't mean you -- go on making that accusation anyway.

I think it needs to be refuted and clearly refuted. Not in comparison only with recent presidents or since WWII but since the late 19th century. Many fewer than G.W. Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, FDR, Hoover, Coolidge, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft. Fewer than any two term president since Ulysses Grant, 1869-1877. That's 140 years and I don't think that can be considered recent.

Count of EOs <> Impact of EOs.

The highlighted section is referring to how he used EOs, the impact that they had. Not the number issued. Noting that he issued fewer per year of presidency than most presidents doesn't counter the argument being made.

Heck, if he had issued ONE EO that said "The president gets to make all the rules", the fact that he only issued one doesn't refute the argument that he abused the EO process. The two aren't the same things.

 

[Marcus]

You keep implying Obama issued fewer EOs only in comparison to recent presidents or since WW2. But the list that was linked shows he issued the fewest of any president for the past 100+ years. I am a registered Democrat and the context here is, Obama has repeatedly been accused of using EOs in a way few presidents have. Almost to the point where it became dictatorial. That Obama was trying to usurp the powers of Congress through the use of EOs. If that was true I would be greatly concerned and very disappointed in Barack Obama. Only it's not true yet some people -- and I don't mean you -- go on making that accusation anyway.

I think it needs to be refuted and clearly refuted. Not in comparison only with recent presidents or since WWII but since the late 19th century. Many fewer than G.W. Bush, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Truman, FDR, Hoover, Coolidge, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft. Fewer than any two term president since Ulysses Grant, 1869-1877. That's 140 years and I don't think that can be considered recent.

I never said anything about "recent" , that was The Don. All I said was Obama is in the middle of the pack historically. It wasn't intended as an insult.

At least you said "I don't mean you" because I never made the accusation you're referring to.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, we do intentionally weaken the equality of votes to promote Federalism.
This is usually a good thing, but we must not kid ourselves about the fact that we are sacrificing democracy for unity.

I'll counter and say, we must not kid ourselves that we sacrifice democracy in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

I happen to think that's a good thing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Tell that to the sycophants that railed against Hillary.

I'm telling that to everyone about everything, irrespective of their political affiliation or preference.

 

[Meadmaker]

Weren't there suits filed against Obama with the argument that he wasn't a US citizen?

Lots were filed. Most (maybe all?) were dismissed for lack of standing.

I haven't read this entire Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'll counter and say, we must not kid ourselves that we sacrifice democracy in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

I happen to think that's a good thing.

That's the job of other constitutional mechanisms, such as Bill of Rights and Supreme Court. Also, 2/3 majorities for major decisions.

Codifying that some people's vote is more important than other's is problematic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's the job of other constitutional mechanisms, such as Bill of Rights and Supreme Court. Also, 2/3 majorities for major decisions.

Codifying that some people's vote is more important than other's is problematic.

That's not what it's doing. It's codifying that a governing entity (a state) has a voice in addition to the people. Each person's vote has the same value as any other, but the state itself has a vote as well.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's not what it's doing. It's codifying that a governing entity (a state) has a voice in addition to the people. Each person's vote has the same value as any other, but the state itself has a vote as well.

interesting way to look at it...