Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good thing he does not know any national secrets. He does not read briefings. He’s doing the only thing he knows: talking to his mobs.
 
Last edited:
Tero said:
Good thing he does not know any national secrets. He does not read briefings. He’s doing the only thing he knows: talking to his mobs.
Click to expand...

Well, in all fairness, he does have to have his addiction to adoring crowds fed. Think of the withdrawal he'd go through! Shudder!
 
Ambrosia said:
Re: 2 party system benefits and drawbacks...

What benefits?
Click to expand...
Eliminates the possibility of vote-splitting which allows someone to come to power with far less than 50% of the vote. (And yes, there are ways to alleviate that problem... runoff elections, ranked ballots, etc. But those add to the complexity of the election.)

A 3+ party system may cause the formation of coalitions. The problem with those is that it gives undeserved influence/power to smaller parties. Plus, voters don't really have the option of selecting 'coalition' on their ballot, and may not have been in favor of the party they voted for "linking up" with some other party.
[/quote]
I see only drawbacks.

-easier to gerrymander
-unrepresentative and marginalises the majority of voters
-allows negative campaigning
[/quote]
Negative campaigning is more than possible in a 3+ party system. Canada has 3 or 4 national parties and there are plenty of attack ads that get used every election.
-partisanship
Click to expand...
Actually I think the opposite is true. You're more likely to get partisanship in a 3+ party system.

When you have only 2 parties, your congress-critters may differ in ideology enough from the party leaders that they sometimes vote against the rest of the party. In a 3+ party system, politicians can find a party that better suits their ideology, so they would be less likely to go against party leadership.

Now, it is true... the U.S. has become hyperpartisan, with many issues decided along party lines. But it wasn't always that way, and if you go back a few decades you will find much more flexibility in the way congress-critters voted. On the other hand, politicians in Canada's system pretty much always stick to party lines.
Democracy in the US (and in the UK) is dysfunctional and needs to be fixed.
Click to expand...
A bit strange that you talk about how Democracy in the UK is dysfunctional in a post about 2 party systems, since they have more than 3 parties, and while 2 parties dominate, at least half a dozen have elected members in parliament
 
ponderingturtle said:
Finally one briefing down, after only 2 years.
Click to expand...
It's interesting how even in that he can't help but put it as if he briefed the intelligence services, and not the other way around. I bet they were shocked to learn they were meant to protect the USA from terrorism.
 
Mumbles said:
I'd be surprised if it was just Chinese and Russian intelligence that were listening in. And for that matter, I'm a bit surprised that people forgot about this, since it was brought up back in January of 2017 and Cheeto Benito seemed to shrug it off.
Click to expand...

Mmm? I actually didn't hear about it then. Thanks MSM!
 
Craig4 said:
He's a Trump supporter; lying is what they do.
Click to expand...

I think most people feel your frustration with Trump, but it appears from a lot of your posts in this thread that you have abandoned all skeptical/rational positions with regard to him/republicans/his supporters.

This does nothing but a disservice to yourself and to the forum in general.
Will you reconsider what you're doing?
 
Pure Bayesian Statistics will tell you that the safe bet is to assume that Trump is lying most of the time.
It is way less effort to find the bits where he happened to be correct than trying to keep up with fact-checking his lies.
 
TofuFighter said:
I think most people feel your frustration with Trump, but it appears from a lot of your posts in this thread that you have abandoned all skeptical/rational positions with regard to him/republicans/his supporters.

This does nothing but a disservice to yourself and to the forum in general.
Will you reconsider what you're doing?
Click to expand...

Actually, that seems kind, compared to my opinion.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Pipe bombs sent to prominent Democrats.
I'm sure the usual suspects will shortly be on the case with conspiracy theories and whataboutisms.
Click to expand...

I just poked my head around the door of that thread (I didn't stay, because it was exactly as much of a ******** as I thought it would be), and at least one prominent Trump-supporter is apparently simultaneously arguing that it doesn't matter at all because the bombs were actually harmless so there was no crime committed, and that it was a Democrat who was responsible for sending them and so should be locked up.
 
It's being reported that Trump is still using unsecured phones, despite being warned that both Chinese and Russian spies are definitely listening in

If you want the fun bits, then ponder that the reason he uses unsecured lines is to prevent his senior aides from knowing who he's talking to, and that his staff think it's okay because he's always been paranoid about his phone calls being recorded so he's probably not giving out classified information, and anyway he's uninformed about the details of classified information so he probably couldn't say anything that damaging anyway. This is how the highest levels of US government is operating, folks.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom