Trump Triumphs

[Rincewind]

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Petitions over 10,000 get a response, petitions over 100,000 get considered for debate in parliament. This meets both criteria. If you going to moan about something at least be clued up in the fact ffs.

I did say over a certain amount they have to be addressed.

[Carl the Llama]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Apparently British nationals are not banned from entering unless they're travelling directly from one of the seven states mentioned.

So he'll be fine to fly in from his training camp in Ethiopia?  I can understand him having an issue with the ban, I certainly have an issue with it, but I really don't see why he's making a big deal about being personally affected when all the available facts seem to indicate otherwise.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

So he'll be fine to fly in from his training camp in Ethiopia?  I can understand him having an issue with the ban, I certainly have an issue with it, but I really don't see why he's making a big deal about being personally affected when all the available facts seem to indicate otherwise.

I think it's only been clarified in the last few hours.

 

[Facecloth]

5 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

I did say over a certain amount they have to be addressed.

Exactly, so it won't be ignored will it.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

I think it's only been clarified in the last few hours.

The Farah story's from today though, we've known about the ban for a bit longer than that and I would hope that Mo knows which passport he carries so that's why I'm confused about him ever being unsure if he can travel to the US...

 

Not that it's really that important, just thought I'd mention it

[FireFox]

1 hour ago, Thracian said:

So why don't people campaign to change the rules?

Because "the Constitution". People don't want to change it. Even though it is 225+ years old.

 

It take 2/3 of the house and senate to change the constitution. Or 2/3 of the states.

 

In 2000, Bush also won the election while losing the popular vote. So twice in recent years, the republicans have benefited from the electoral college. They don't want to change the rules. Everything is done by the party lines. And with the states' current gerrymandered congressional districts, it'll be improbable that democrats can get 2/3 of the congress (while at the same time having 2/3 of the senate) - and if they could, then it is likely the current rules would be in their favour, so why would they want to change them?

[Thracian]

1 hour ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Not surprising as Obama won the popular vote by 9.5 million in 2008 and just under 5 million when reelected. 

But the principle's no different. Democracy's about the winner getting power. It's not about percentages. Or tight finishes. Or what the BBC thinks. Or anything else.  

[Thracian]

18 minutes ago, FireFox said:

Because "the Constitution". People don't want to change it. Even though it is 225+ years old.

 

It take 2/3 of the house and senate to change the constitution. Or 2/3 of the states.

 

In 2000, Bush also won the election while losing the popular vote. So twice in recent years, the republicans have benefited from the electoral college. They don't want to change the rules. Everything is done by the party lines. And with the states' current gerrymandered congressional districts, it'll be improbable that democrats can get 2/3 of the congress (while at the same time having 2/3 of the senate) - and if they could, then it is likely the current rules would be in their favour, so why would they want to change them?

So, a voting procedure that has served for 225 years and delivered all sorts of government is suddenly not fair? Would you have wanted a change of rules if the Democrats had won?   

[Charl91]

23 minutes ago, Thracian said:

But the principle's no different. Democracy's about the winner getting power. It's not about percentages. Or tight finishes. Or what the BBC thinks. Or anything else.  

 

How is it no different? On one hand (eg. Obama '12), you have the person with the most votes getting elected. On the other hand (Trump '16), you have the person with the most votes not getting elected, because of arbitary lines.

 

If one person's vote is worth more than anothers, purely because of the area that they live in, than something is wrong. Of course people weren't kicking up a fuss before, because previously the person with the most votes won the election. I'm sure if it had happened to someone like UKIP, you'd be spitting feathers.

 

Yes, Trump won according to the rules, and obviously you can't invalidate it now, 'cus they were the rules (which is a shame, because he's a moron). It does show though that something needs to be changed with the rules though, because it's clearly a terrible system. Not that ours is much better.

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

How is it no different? On one hand (eg. Obama '12), you have the person with the most votes getting elected. On the other hand (Trump '16), you have the person with the most votes not getting elected, because of arbitary lines.

 

If one person's vote is worth more than anothers, purely because of the area that they live in, than something is wrong. Of course people weren't kicking up a fuss before, because previously the person with the most votes won the election. I'm sure if it had happened to someone like UKIP, you'd be spitting feathers.

 

Yes, Trump won according to the rules, and obviously you can't invalidate it now, 'cus they were the rules (which is a shame, because he's a moron). It does show though that something needs to be changed with the rules though, because it's clearly a terrible system. Not that ours is much better.

It kind of did happen to UKIP, they got nearly 4 million votes in the last election and gained 1 MP, SNP had about half that and gained 50 odd. Sometimes things aren't exactly fair and even but the rules were in place and known beforehand. So complaints are futile.

[Donut]

Im kind of glad im ignorant on politics.

 

Everyone involved are self interested. And people also think the way to change countries is to make an extreme vote.

 

Should have more dictatorships if anything rather than letting people decide.

[Charl91]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

It kind of did happen to UKIP, they got nearly 4 million votes in the last election and gained 1 MP, SNP had about half that and gained 50 odd. Sometimes things aren't exactly fair and even but the rules were in place and known beforehand. So complaints are futile.

 

Yeah, and that was stupid as well. As much as I despise UKIP, they should've had a lot more representation in parliament. Like I said, ours isn't much better, it's a broken system.

 

 

[Barky]

2 hours ago, Thracian said:

 

 

If people who are democratically elected cannot implement policies they openly outline before being voted into power then, to me, democracy is undermined.

 

As mentioned earlier "criticism" is not a problem but seeking to prevent policy implement is...and basically politics according to the most vocal gang. 

 

My aim is not to judge the policies but to ask if democracy is defensible if that's going to be the case. 

 

.   

 

  

He promised to ban muslims. Detaining and attempting to deport people from specific countries who might not even be muslim isn't the same as banning muslims, is it? So he's not doing what he promised. If he wants to ban muslims like he promised to do then he can, but obviously he'll need to be a bit more realistic in terms of how its implemented.

 

He won't though. This whole mess is Trump at his most genius. He has intentionally implemented the travel bans to achieve maximum chaos, which gets him maximum column inches and helps to inform and persuade his voters that he is doing something about 'the Muslim thing'. Anyone with half a brain knows he's doing nothing to help reduce domestic terrorism but that's beside the point. He's using what looks like incredible incompetence when it comes to basic practical considerations to maximise the populist impact of his order. He has done that knowing that democratic federal judges will work against him and at some point he'll come out all guns blazing against them, probably tweeting about a conspiracy again. So not only does he please his voters in regards to one bogeyman he also primes another bogeyman in the same stroke.

 

It's brilliant, horrible, impressive and depressing politics.

 

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Barky said:

He promised to ban muslims. Detaining and attempting to deport people from specific countries who might not even be muslim isn't the same as banning muslims, is it? So he's not doing what he promised. If he wants to ban muslims like he promised to do then he can, but obviously he'll need to be a bit more realistic in terms of how its implemented.

 

He won't though. This whole mess is Trump at his most genius. He has intentionally implemented the travel bans to achieve maximum chaos, which gets him maximum column inches and helps to inform and persuade his voters that he is doing something about 'the Muslim thing'. Anyone with half a brain knows he's doing nothing to help reduce domestic terrorism but that's beside the point. He's using what looks like incredible incompetence when it comes to basic practical considerations to maximise the populist impact of his order. He has done that knowing that democratic federal judges will work against him and at some point he'll come out all guns blazing against them, probably tweeting about a conspiracy again. So not only does he please his voters in regards to one bogeyman he also primes another bogeyman in the same stroke.

 

It's brilliant, horrible, impressive and depressing politics.

 

For the first time in a while I agree with you.

[Dr The Singh]

I really thought he was playing upto to the thick, ignorant American and when votes in would show common sense.  This isn't good for the people of America, so much damage is being done

[Mike Oxlong]

34 minutes ago, Thracian said:

But the principle's no different. Democracy's about the winner getting power. It's not about percentages. Or tight finishes. Or what the BBC thinks. Or anything else.  

You raised a concern about the credence of democracy.

 

You then implied that Trump's actions should not be challenged as he is the democratically elected winner.

 

I expressed my own views about that approach when he has not won the popular vote.

 

So I'm expressing my opinion that I see a difference of legitimacy between having the mandate of the majority and gaining power with a minority vote due to the structure of the system. In essence I'm disagreeing with the system in the US and here, 

 

I don't think it's hard to understand.

 

 

 

 

[Facecloth]

3 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

You raised a concern about the credence of democracy.

 

You then implied that Trump's actions should not be challenged as he is the democratically elected winner.

 

I expressed my own views about that approach when he has not won the popular vote.

 

So I'm expressing my opinion that I see a difference of legitimacy between having the mandate of the majority and gaining power with a minority vote due to the structure of the system. In essence I'm disagreeing with the system in the US and here, 

 

I don't think it's hard to understand.

 

 

 

 

It will be for him.

[Guest FriendlyRam]

19 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I really thought he was playing upto to the thick, ignorant American and when votes in would show common sense.  This isn't good for the people of America, so much damage is being done

its the equivalent of basically going into the white house and smashing it up

 

When will someone have the sense to just impeach him?

 

1 week and he's already got protests outside his door, not to mention at airports all over the US, and protests and riots taking place all over the world ffs.. sorry but the man is a first class loony. 4 years of him just throwing out executive orders  

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, Barky said:

He promised to ban muslims. Detaining and attempting to deport people from specific countries who might not even be muslim isn't the same as banning muslims, is it? So he's not doing what he promised. If he wants to ban muslims like he promised to do then he can, but obviously he'll need to be a bit more realistic in terms of how its implemented.

 

He won't though. This whole mess is Trump at his most genius. He has intentionally implemented the travel bans to achieve maximum chaos, which gets him maximum column inches and helps to inform and persuade his voters that he is doing something about 'the Muslim thing'. Anyone with half a brain knows he's doing nothing to help reduce domestic terrorism but that's beside the point. He's using what looks like incredible incompetence when it comes to basic practical considerations to maximise the populist impact of his order. He has done that knowing that democratic federal judges will work against him and at some point he'll come out all guns blazing against them, probably tweeting about a conspiracy again. So not only does he please his voters in regards to one bogeyman he also primes another bogeyman in the same stroke.

 

It's brilliant, horrible, impressive and depressing politics.

 

This is true.

 

The problem for him is that it will, one day, backfire on him. Too many enemies made and mobilised.

[leicsmac]

Is no one going to talk about Bannon being in the inner circle and trying to overrule the judges involved in this btw?

[Rincewind]

Is he on anyones deathlist? What he wants will not increase terrorism but increase it. America has enough homegrown nutters without worrying about oversea ones.

[Guest MattP]

50 minutes ago, FriendlyRam said:

1 week and he's already got protests outside his door, not to mention at airports all over the US, and protests and riots taking place all over the world ffs.. sorry but the man is a first class loony. 4 years of him just throwing out executive orders  

The protests will do him no harm at all, if anything they will shore up his core vote and make them get behind him even more. The general public have more a distain for protestors in 2017 than at any time in history.

 

16 minutes ago, Rincewind said:

Is he on anyones deathlist? What he wants will not increase terrorism but increase it.

How?

[leicsmac]

Just now, MattP said:

The protests will do him no harm at all, if anything they will shore up his core vote and make them get behind him even more. The general public have more a distain for protestors in 2017 than at any time in history.

 

He had his core vote sewn up anyway - they think he's the Second Coming. He needs to hold on to the floating voters in those swing states he won, and I'm not entirely sure what's going on is helping.

 

And considering what the public has allowed governments to do to protesters in the past I'm not entirely sure your second sentence is accurate either.

[FireFox]

2 hours ago, Thracian said:

So, a voting procedure that has served for 225 years and delivered all sorts of government is suddenly not fair?

It isn't "suddenly" not fair. It hasn't been fair for a long time. The idea behind the electoral college is to "protect states' rights", assuming we'd have a minimal federal government, assuming we wouldn't have the internet, the amount of global trade and communications, et cetera. But the fact is, we do have those things now.

 

Quote

•  

Posted 9 November 2016 · Report post

On 11/9/2016 at 07:39, RoboFox said:

When I was 15, I was told the electoral college was to "protect states/states' rights", and yes, in a way, it does that.

 

When the whole system was set up 227 years ago, the federal government was limited greatly by the 10th amendment, power was reserved for the states and people. The state and other local governments where much more important, and the federal government was much less important, to people back then. So having the electoral college (the states) determine the president did make some sense in that it did protect the states and thus protect the people in a way.

 

But that was 227 years ago. Transportation and communication were slow. Federal regulations were minimal. Et cetera. And although the Republican party advocates for states' rights and a minimal federal government, this is 2016 - America requires a large (in comparison to back in 1789) federal government. Even the Republican party won't completely tear it all down. And this large federal government is now more important in protecting people's rights than state governments are.

 

So then, why is there still this electoral college protecting the states and their rights? Protecting the states doesn't protect "we the people" anymore. This is supposed to be a government that serves the people, but by using an outdated system, it doesn't. Instead we will have "taxation without (proper) representation".

^

My post from page 8.

 

2 hours ago, Thracian said:

Would you have wanted a change of rules if the Democrats had won?   

Yes. As long as I live in Illinois (or a number of other states), unless a significant shift happens with the parties, my vote in the presidential election means nothing. I didn't like Hillary. I would have voted for her over Trump, but if it was Clinton v Jeb Bush, I would have voted and wanted it to mean something.

 

 

[Thracian]

I fully accept FireFox's comments regarding the background to the rules and yes, the situation is easy to understand. Whether millions agree with the other millions or not, Trump won his mandate according to the rules laid down. As a result I don't see his legitimacy as being in question at all. 

 

Not that I t think the Americans had much of a Presidential choice but then I don't think our own election choices are necessarily any better, particularly if I were a Labour voter. Again it smacks of flaws in the systems.