|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Trump (Read 7398 times)
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
 |
Re: Trump
« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2017, 08:12:20 pm » |
|
Zanthius, can you cool it with the negative generalizations about entire populations?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2017, 09:10:14 pm » |
|
Zanthius, can you cool it with the negative generalizations about entire populations?
Yeah, you know, maybe I shouldn't complain about Donald Trump at all, since I am not even living in the United States. But you know, your country has by far the biggest army in the world, and your country has used to push a global agenda for democracy and human rights. With a lot of power comes a lot of responsibility. I feel like that responsibility is lacking with Donald Trump, and yeah... I am a bit angry at you Americans for electing him...
But maybe you should just delete this entire thread.. I realize that nothing good comes from this dialog. I also know that most people dislike it when people from other countries talk badly about the people from your country.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 10:32:55 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2017, 02:58:43 am » |
|
I am a bit confused about this. Can anybody vote to decide who is going to be the democrat candidate, or do you need to be a member of the democratic party?
It depends on the state. Some states let you vote in the primaries regardless of who you are, and some only let you vote for the candidate of a party you're registered as. Bernie did quite well in states that have open primaries (like Michigan, my state), while Hillary slammed him in states that have closed primaries (like New York).
Similarly, can anybody vote to decide who is going to be the republican candidate, or do you need to be a members of the republican party?
Same as above.
If I don't need to be a member of the democratic or republican parties, can I vote in both cases?
Yes.
I don't quite understand why you need to limit it to 1 candidate for the democrats and 1 candidate for the republicans in the final election. Why can't people just vote both for their favorite candidate and their favorite party in the final election? Isn't it better to have more options?
From the parties' standpoint, no, of course not. If you offer two candidates and the other major party offers just one, you're splitting your votes in half, pretty much guaranteeing a win for the other party. That's what the primaries are there for; people vote for a candidate, hopefully the strongest candidate, to represent the party in the actual election, where all supporters of the party then unite under the chosen nominee to get them elected.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 03:01:35 am by JulieMaru-chan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2017, 04:21:28 am » |
|
From the parties' standpoint, no, of course not. If you offer two candidates and the other major party offers just one, you're splitting your votes in half, pretty much guaranteeing a win for the other party. That's what the primaries are there for; people vote for a candidate, hopefully the strongest candidate, to represent the party in the actual election, where all supporters of the party then unite under the chosen nominee to get them elected.
Not necessarily. Say for example that 19% of the population chose Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, while 21% chose Bernie Sanders and the democratic party, the democratic party would get 40% in total then, and all of Hillary's votes would automatically go to Bernie Sanders.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 130
Sharing is good.
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2017, 04:43:16 am » |
|
That's not how American elections work. Political parties are not voted for; politicians are. Whoever gets the most electoral votes becomes the President. Parties can't manipulate the election in the way you describe.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #37 on: June 23, 2017, 08:44:34 am » |
|
From the parties' standpoint, no, of course not. If you offer two candidates and the other major party offers just one, you're splitting your votes in half, pretty much guaranteeing a win for the other party. That's what the primaries are there for; people vote for a candidate, hopefully the strongest candidate, to represent the party in the actual election, where all supporters of the party then unite under the chosen nominee to get them elected.
Not necessarily. Say for example that 19% of the population chose Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, while 21% chose Bernie Sanders and the democratic party, the democratic party would get 40% in total then, and all of Hillary's votes would automatically go to Bernie Sanders.
OTOH, the whole electoral college system has been implemented to prevent populists, by having electors sent, which need to inform themselves about the health of the candidate, and his/her ability to take the office and work for the greater good of the population of the USoA. And to vote differently in the case of being convinced that the candidate they've been sent to vote for if they find the candidate unsuitable. This stems from times when the travel times (and the news spreading times) between the states and Washington easily surpassed 2 weeks, hence known scandals of a candidate may nor have reached some states on the day of voting. (Or even the death of a candidate.)
Nowadays though, they are very limited in who they can vote for, and are bound by the state election rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29
There are movements to end this problematic system, by bypassing the constitutional system of electoral college, by amending the state election laws (which may be much easier):
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Basically, they want the state's electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote, independent of who won in that state.
Such a system has it's own disadvantages... Especially if you bypass the federal constitution by implementing laws around it...
But then, the constitution says nothing about how the state has to instruct the electoral college members they send.
This will still take ages to get implemented, but the election of 45th and before, the 43rd president's election, pushed this movement quite a lot.
See also commentary here: http://www.themainewire.com/2016/12/npv-movement-expands-effort-undermine-electoral-college/
Mr. Trump is president. And will likely remain so for the next 7 1/2 years to come.
Any new administration in the US has always chenged so much, that there was a lot of collateral damage. Mr. Tump is no different.
But inertia of institutions has slowed him down considerably already, and the learning curve of his team is steep.
He has found out, that unlike business he can not lock himself up with his team and decide in a backroom how to spend the money and what to achieve. There are far more implications he has to consider, which in business is usually handled afterwards but in politics has to be considered beforehand.
He's not doing that bad, but not doing great either. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
[Edit] A question:
What is Trump's opinion on making Puerto Rico a new state?
The people there have the USoA-passports, and denying them a vote in the US elections by not making Puerto Rico a US-state may be against the consitution and classifying them as second class nationals.
I wonder if someone already filed a complaint with the federal constitutional court...
(I know the republicans are generally against, as Puerto Rico would likely vote democrats, but then Trump once ran in the primaries for the democrats. Also a new state is a very visible symbol of "making the US great again", by visible and officially expanding the United States. And he would be in the history books as the president who brought the Puerto Ricans into the USoA.)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 08:57:18 am by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #38 on: June 23, 2017, 01:01:32 pm » |
|
OTOH, the whole electoral college system has been implemented to prevent populists, by having electors sent, which need to inform themselves about the health of the candidate, and his/her ability to take the office and work for the greater good of the population of the USoA. And to vote differently in the case of being convinced that the candidate they've been sent to vote for if they find the candidate unsuitable.
What it actually does, is create more room for corruption, since it is easier to lobby the electoral college, than to lobby the entire American population. It is in general very dangerous to elect people that are going to represent you in other elections, since it creates room for corruption. In general, the more steps there are between a governing body and the population, the more likely it is that it is going to be highly corrupted.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 02:29:39 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #41 on: June 23, 2017, 04:25:23 pm » |
|
And Clinton called a quarter of the country or so 'Deplorable'.
I just think that is so trivial compared to what Trump says all the time, and especially what he said about grabbing pussies. Nevertheless, calling half of the country a basket of deplorables was extremely stupid of her (as a politician), and shows a very arrogant attitude.
But to be honest, I might often say that I think most people are stupid or ignorant for one reason or another, but I would never ever say what Trump said about grabbing pussies. That doesn't just indicate that you dislike people, that also indicates that you are disrespectful of people. It is a big difference between disliking your neighbor, and being disrespectful of your neighbor, for example by making lots of noise in the middle of the night or by cutting down a tree in his garden. Where I live disrespectful behavior is frowned upon, while disliking other people is kinda acceptable as long as you are civil and respectful.
It is also that he seems so incoherent when he speaks. He repeats himself all the time and contradicts himself all the time. Hillary Clinton seems moderately coherent when she speaks. She doesn't repeat herself all the time, and she doesn't contradict herself all the time. She seems like she has a moderately functional brain.
You know, of all our politicians, I think only one said openly that he supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and he is in the most right-wing populist party. But even in that right-wing populist party (which I despise), all the other members supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 07:05:25 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #42 on: June 24, 2017, 12:27:52 am » |
|
It seems a great deal less trivial when you have a suspicion that she might be calling YOU deplorable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
|
Re: Trump
« Reply #44 on: June 24, 2017, 02:24:11 pm » |
|
He never said he'd grab his own daughter by the pussy. He said, that because of his wealth and power, he can grab any woman by the pussy, and they'll like it (or pretend) becausehe has the power to kill her career forever.
In his biography, he tells a story of a former employee (female), whom he fired and made sure she never got work again. He pushed her around until her marriage broke, and whenever he can he's still kicking her.
That's really bad behaviour for someone in any office!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
|
|
|
|
|
