It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionUS Inauguration day, one of those historic moments?(437 posts)(437 posts)
(437 posts)
Pages:
1
5
9
10
11
12
13
15
20
25
30
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 21, 2017
avatar
vsr: Second video - not funny at all. :(
Nah, that shit was hilarious. His video on periscope afterwards was also hilarious. He looked straight up shook about it.

Both him and that cowardly lib that sucker punched him and ran off like a bitch are both pussies. Watching these two sides clash is like watching toddlers fight. They've both reached the point of being so extreme they're absurd, but hey free entertainment!

It's funny how the citizens have become more entertaining then the fact our president is some jack-off celeb, but then again he's just a face for the country and someone to put blame on all things going wrong. A total puppet, just like the ones before him. I've run into people on both the far left and far right and the shit they dribble out the mouth is fascinating. It makes my head spin how in our own world we are now, not to mention the divide just getting bigger and bigger while governments get more and more power hungry, and our rapid advancements in technology, my dreams of living in a bleak cyberpunk dystopia may soon come true! :D

Hurry up and gimme Cyberpunk 2077 Poland!
Post edited January 21, 2017 by CARRiON.FLOWERS
Posted January 21, 2017
avatar
mechmouse: I agree that most of his campaign plans will fall far short, just as Obama's did. Most outside the USA thought Obama might bring in a Universal Healthcare service akin to the rest of the developed world and finally confront the nations archaic gun laws. But his plans fell short, constantly cut down and neutered by concessions.
That's how these things work. Republicanism is hard wired to, by all means, block one way of thinking and operating from getting it's way. It's only good characteristic is not to let someone get complete control, efficiency and good will be damned.
Posted January 21, 2017
low rated
avatar
Trilarion: Hmm, one should maybe define historic event before.

To me it feels like watching a car crash in slow motion. On the other hand I hope and I'm quite optimistic Trump won't do too much damage and will be gone soon and hopefully no one will remember him much in due time. Doesn't really count for a historic event, or does it?
avatar
mechmouse: This echoes my thoughts. I don't like Trumps opinions, ideals and policies. Using 144 characters to confront issues where 144 words would be inadequate fills me with dread, but I dislike social media. That said, those committing violent protest against him are far worse.

I agree that most of his campaign plans will fall far short, just as Obama's did. Most outside the USA thought Obama might bring in a Universal Healthcare service akin to the rest of the developed world and finally confront the nations archaic gun laws. But his plans fell short, constantly cut down and neutered by concessions.
Those were never realistic expectations. Just the healthcare overhaul Obama was able to implement received an excessive amount of opposition (for something that has its groundwork at the Heritage Foundation) and that was WITH the cooperation of the Insurance industry. Universal Healthcare would have meant taking on the insurance companies too and there was no way that was ever going to fly. With the way things are set up in the US, this was probably as close as anyone could come.

As for gun laws, Obama did make as forceful a push as he could after the Newtown massacre and we all know how that turned out. In the end, addressing something as deeply ingrained as this issue takes more than just a president.

Speaking of Newtown, I kind of dread the idea of Trump as the comforter-in-chief, but that's what he'll be tasked with the upcoming four years every time there's a mass shooting. It'll be cringe-comedy fodder like nothing else.
Posted January 21, 2017
high rated
Goodbye, Malik’s half‐brother!
Posted January 21, 2017
avatar
RWarehall: Let me put this bluntly...
When people are talking about the popular vote in conjunction with calling this past election illegitimate because of it, the idea they are "sore losers" becomes quite obvious. When they talk of changing these rules using this election as the example, I'm not sure how else one can fairly characterize it. When it comes to the numbers, I think I just explained why just adding all states together doesn't give reasonably accurate results. The campaigns would have campaigned differently. Voters in solid blue and red states probably would have voted in greater numbers. No idea who would have really won a popular vote but adding each state together doesn't prove a thing.
avatar
DaCostaBR: You're painting people with a pretty large brush. Because there's some people who want to change the outcome of the election you're going to dismiss any discussion of the Electoral College? Of course no election should be retroactively invalidated, he already won, that is over and done with, and if Bush is any indication just because he lost the popular his first time around doesn't mean he can't win it on reelection.

But this time the EC did disagree with the popular vote, again, and the candidate who fewer amount of voters supported won. Maybe under a different type of election the votes would be split differently, but you shouldn't ignore the issue that does exist now and the evidence we do have for it based on what might have happened.

The way you describe the voting process sounds insane to me. Remember, most places on Earth don't have the same issues with recounting that you do, so there must be a solution for it. More than one I'll bet, each country must have found a different one.

The way we personally do it over here is with electronic voting machines. We've been using them since the mid-90s. They're not connected to the internet, if they are to be tampered with it must be done in person the same way as with a non-electronic machine. After the election is complete you can just check the machine to get all the results instantly. The machine provides a receipt after a person votes, so you can check immediately that your vote has been tallied. You hand the receipt before leaving and it is kept secure so that a manual recount can be done if necessary, though I never heard of that happening. Every person is registered to a specific table at a specific polling station and they must show photo ID and provide either a signature or a fingerprint scan to vote, so no one can vote in someone else's place.
I just love it when you actually discuss an issue and some wanker comes in claiming how you are "dismissing" or "hand-waving away" an issue because they disagree.

I explained in quite a bit of detail why the system of American government formed the way it did. How this system roughly works and why it works better to appease smaller states. And even the difficulty of getting a super majority that would be necessary to change the Constitution. And here I stand accused of just dismissing it...

You are the one completely dismissing why popular vote might not be the best thing to govern by. Not even going to address again the validity of adding up votes when that is not how an election is decided. It's like saying your football team should have won because they took twice the shots on goal or had a decisive margin in time of possession even though the score is 2-1 against. Because the rules of the game decide the winner by shots into the net, not number of shots, popular vote, or time of possession.

Someone mentioned what if there was a World President. With an estimated 7.3 billion people in the world and 1.3 billion in each of China and India, tell me how happy Europe or other countries would be if they voted say 80% for one candidate but he still lost because the winner won most of China and India? And what if this happens election after election?

You might think that is best, but that doesn't make it true.
As an aside, here's an interesting article concerning the electoral map
http://www.businessinsider.com/2016-election-results-maps-population-adjusted-cartogram-2016-11/
Post edited January 21, 2017 by RWarehall
Posted January 21, 2017
low rated
avatar
Erpy: Those were never realistic expectations. Just the healthcare overhaul Obama was able to implement received an excessive amount of opposition (for something that has its groundwork at the Heritage Foundation) and that was WITH the cooperation of the Insurance industry. Universal Healthcare would have meant taking on the insurance companies too and there was no way that was ever going to fly. With the way things are set up in the US, this was probably as close as anyone could come.
I think the funniest quote of that time was some hard lined Republican saying something like "If Stephen Hawkins had relied on the NHS he'd be dead already"

As for gun laws, Obama did make as forceful a push as he could after the Newtown massacre and we all know how that turned out. In the end, addressing something as deeply ingrained as this issue takes more than just a president.

Speaking of Newtown, I kind of dread the idea of Trump as the comforter-in-chief, but that's what he'll be tasked with the upcoming four years every time there's a mass shooting. It'll be cringe-comedy fodder like nothing else.
Thanks for that, there is a tiny part of my mind now waiting for the next mass shooting.

I don't think any single event, regardless of scale, will change policy, its going to take generations
Posted January 21, 2017
low rated
i watched russia today and i see everybody was clapping hands when Donald Trump spoke - everybody but that stupid piece of shit obama. he just bland stupid to the end, he never learns
Posted January 21, 2017
low rated
avatar
ciomalau: i watched russia today and i see everybody was clapping hands when Donald Trump spoke - everybody but that stupid piece of shit obama. he just bland stupid to the end, he never learns
Well of course everyone else was clapping, he was surrounded by HIS supporters. I'm sure if you got a good cross section of US citizens, just under 1/2 would be clapping.

Which reminds me have people seen this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38682574

Of course it could be a doctored images by those meddling left wing media types.
Posted January 21, 2017
avatar
DaCostaBR: The way you describe the voting process sounds insane to me. Remember, most places on Earth don't have the same issues with recounting that you do, so there must be a solution for it. More than one I'll bet, each country must have found a different one.
Well I kind of find it hard to believe you don't have the same type of issues over there when you admit you don't have recounts. How could you possibly know without doing them...

avatar
DaCostaBR: The way we personally do it over here is with electronic voting machines. We've been using them since the mid-90s. They're not connected to the internet, if they are to be tampered with it must be done in person the same way as with a non-electronic machine. After the election is complete you can just check the machine to get all the results instantly. The machine provides a receipt after a person votes, so you can check immediately that your vote has been tallied. You hand the receipt before leaving and it is kept secure so that a manual recount can be done if necessary, though I never heard of that happening. Every person is registered to a specific table at a specific polling station and they must show photo ID and provide either a signature or a fingerprint scan to vote, so no one can vote in someone else's place.
We do this to.... not everywhere though, some still do paper ballots, etc. Then we have absentee ballot's for people who can't vote in person ()such as those in the military) as well. Even sometimes the electronic voting machines mess up... we had reports in this election where machines were showing votes for democrat's even though the person voted republican.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/calibration-error-changes-gop-votes-to-dem-in-illinois-county.html

This may also interest you:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/08/on-election-day-most-voters-use-electronic-or-optical-scan-ballots/
Posted January 21, 2017
avatar
RWarehall: snip
Yes, it is a dismissal of the discussion because saying "they are sore losers" doesn't refute the opponent's argument, it just attacks the other side that's trying to discuss.

We already know how hard it is to change the system, but that's not the point, first of all we need to discuss the merits of the system itself before and whether or not it should be changed and that's what we've tried with the discussion here. And we know how the Electoral College is made in way to appease small states but it does so at the expense of voter equality and proportional representation.

As for the system of world government you propose, for as unrepresentative as it may be, I prefer it to the alternative you propose, because it would still be more representative than minority rule.

avatar
RWarehall:
My point is we have several political parties, and I don't know of any of them having felt jilted and requesting recounts, while in the US it does seem to be a more common occurence. You could say maybe it was bad all along we just never knew about it, but I think if it was the case the political parties would have been the first to sound the horn at the first sign they were being cheated.

You could ask how some of the european users here see their elections, and how their countries deal with this. They also don't seem to deal with recounts on a regular basis.
Post edited January 21, 2017 by DaCostaBR
Posted January 21, 2017
avatar
ciomalau: i watched russia today and i see everybody was clapping hands when Donald Trump spoke - everybody but that stupid piece of shit obama. he just bland stupid to the end, he never learns
avatar
mechmouse: Well of course everyone else was clapping, he was surrounded by HIS supporters. I'm sure if you got a good cross section of US citizens, just under 1/2 would be clapping.

Which reminds me have people seen this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38682574

Of course it could be a doctored images by those meddling left wing media types.
Obama had 2 million protesters. Seems like Trump has a lot less.
Posted January 21, 2017
avatar
RWarehall: snip
avatar
DaCostaBR: Yes, it is a dismissal of the discussion because saying "they are sore losers" doesn't refute the opponent's argument, it just attacks the other side that's trying to discuss.

We already know how hard it is to change the system, but that's not the point, first of all we need to discuss the merits of the system itself before and whether or not it should be changed and that's what we've tried with the discussion here. And we know how the Electoral College is made in way to appease small states but it does so at the expense of voter equality and proportional representation.

As for the system of world government you propose, for as unrepresentative as it may be, I prefer it to the alternative you propose, because it would still be more representative than minority rule.
Keep repeating the same stupid bullshit until someone believes you. They are not trying to discuss anything. They are claiming the election is illegitimate because of some "national popular vote".

It's pretty fucking simple. National popular vote means NOTHING! It's not what decides the election and both parties knew the rules going in. Every state had been allocated so many votes. Win the state, win the votes. That way no state can unbalance the election vs. the rest of the states, especially since the party in power gets to set their own election rules to make voting easier or harder and for whom. You are the one being dismissive of the truth.

And frankly, so what if YOU prefer it because YOU think it would be more fair. I don't think it would be and you seem to be awfully dismissive of anyone disagreeing with anything you have to say. That doesn't make this much of a discussion. When it goes to "dismissing opinion" you ought to look at yourself in a mirror and look back at your post after post of repeating the same things over and over despite the fact I'll discussed in detail to the contrary.

I still stand by my opinion, that the vast majority of those complaining about the popular vote are doing so solely because their candidate lost and prefer the popular vote because they believe it can be used to make their candidate more likely to win in the future. And if the tables were turned, they wouldn't be saying jack shit. That makes them sore losers.

Furthermore, this isn't the first time the "popular" candidate lost, but I didn't see one of these people talk about popular vote BEFORE the election results came in. Only AFTER their candidate lost did it become such a big issue to them. Again, "sore losers".

That is not being dismissive. I've discussed it, explained it, justified it.
Posted January 21, 2017
avatar
DaCostaBR: Yes, it is a dismissal of the discussion because saying "they are sore losers" doesn't refute the opponent's argument, it just attacks the other side that's trying to discuss.

We already know how hard it is to change the system, but that's not the point, first of all we need to discuss the merits of the system itself before and whether or not it should be changed and that's what we've tried with the discussion here. And we know how the Electoral College is made in way to appease small states but it does so at the expense of voter equality and proportional representation.

As for the system of world government you propose, for as unrepresentative as it may be, I prefer it to the alternative you propose, because it would still be more representative than minority rule.
The electoral college exists as a check and balance of states versus the federal government. It is an intrinsic part of how the US government works. It is the check that exists on the executive branch. The check that exists on the legislative branch is the Senate. The check that exists on the judicial branch are the state courts. Remove the electoral college and you may as well remove the Senate and state courts. The system exists so that the minority does not become so oppressed that it incites rebellion.

Having the farmers that feed the rest of the population rise up is generally a bad thing for the country involved.
Posted January 21, 2017
avatar
MajicMan: Church and State were separated not to keep Christianity out of government, but to prevent government from abolishing Christianity.

Go read the History on the Church of England. Pay attention to the history between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. This country was founded specifically to allow Protestant Christianity. So that no President and no Pope could could oppress Christians.

Freedom of Religion in this country was meant specifically so that Gov. could not force people who practice Christianity into hiding, but so that it could be n the open. It is only the past 50 years that the left has said the separation is meant to oppress Christianity and that crosses must come down. It is why our President places his hand on the Holy Bible when being sworn in, it is why you are placed under oath by swearing upon the Holy Bible. The original pledge makes no mistake that God was a central focus. This was designed to be a country for Christian Freedom.
avatar
dtgreene: A couple issues with this argument:

1. From Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (according to Wikipedia):

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
avatar
dtgreene: Note that this treaty dates back to 1796, so it is far more than 50 years old.

2. The phrase "under God" was a late addition; it only started to appear in 1948 and wasn't made official until 1954. So, the original pledge did not contain the phrase "under God" in it at all, therefore it could not have been a central focus.

(Also, the US Supreme Court has ruled that students have the right not to say the Pledge of Allegiance.)
exactly, law is founded on Torah historically, and when the "law" separates from it's origins it makes itself illegitimate.
it is literally law through lawlessness. there is no justice without truth, only oppression and tyranny.
Posted January 21, 2017
avatar
mechmouse: Well of course everyone else was clapping, he was surrounded by HIS supporters. I'm sure if you got a good cross section of US citizens, just under 1/2 would be clapping.

Which reminds me have people seen this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38682574

Of course it could be a doctored images by those meddling left wing media types.
avatar
Yaykill123: Obama had 2 million protesters. Seems like Trump has a lot less.
Got a link to that, a quick google search shows no such numbers
Post edited January 21, 2017 by mechmouse
Pages:
1
5
9
10
11
12
13
15
20
25
30
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionUS Inauguration day, one of those historic moments?(437 posts)(437 posts)
(437 posts)