America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,035 comments
  • 1,699,952 views
This is why we NEED the electoral college, it is to keep the states that have low populations in play in the national election.

The structure of the Senate already provides that. And it makes sense there, as states are electing their own representatives. But the president is a national office, what do states have to do with it at all? It should be a single nationwide popular vote.

Wasnt the voting fraud already been debunked.?

Many many times now.
 
Yes some Republicans subscribe to those values but that is not the entirety of conservatism.

... which is why I suggested reading the entirety of the linked article which summarizes "conservatism" pretty comprehensively.

The United States, as in so many things, is an outlier. In the other western democracies "liberals" are generally considered centrists. Conservatives are right-of-centre & there is generally another left-of-centre party "social democrats" (as well as, often, a variety of other parties). I think it's reached the point in the US where the rigid two party system has become a negative reality. It's possible Trump, who advocates things no "libertarian conservative" could support, could lead to the emergence of a viable third, or even a fourth party. But it's hard to see how that would play out in the US political system.

I don't pretend to understand and explain all the politics and economic mandates entailed in the Paris Agreement, so I won't try. But I will give a few thoughts:
- When people start wailing about "saving the planet", my BS meter squawks loudly.
- The Agreement is about spending a lot of money, long term. The world has very little money to spare, so they all expect the US to carry the load. This smells and feels like a boondoggle.
- We Americans don't give a rip about the rest of the world when it comes to them dictating our spending. We are sovereign. Right or wrong, we are sovereign. If you feel the need to save the world, do it on your own dime.

Nonsense.

It's not people "wailing" that are the issue, it's climate scientists evaluating the evidence & warning of the possible consequences of inaction..

The world has lots of "money to spare". For instance, it's able to spend 1.7 trillion dollars every year on weapons.

"Right or wrong" ... now that's a powerful intellectual argument. :rolleyes:
 
... which is why I suggested reading the entirety of the linked article which summarizes "conservatism" pretty comprehensively.

The United States, as in so many things, is an outlier. In the other western democracies "liberals" are generally considered centrists. Conservatives are right-of-centre & there is generally another left-of-centre party "social democrats" (as well as, often, a variety of other parties). I think it's reached the point in the US where the rigid two party system has become a negative reality. It's possible Trump, who advocates things no "libertarian conservative" could support, could lead to the emergence of a viable third, or even a fourth party. But it's hard to see how that would play out in the US political system.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Republican =/= conservative same as Democrat =/= liberal. Different words that have different meanings but share some common attributes. This coffee I'm drinking isn't ice cream just because it has cream in it, for example.
 
... which is why I suggested reading the entirety of the linked article which summarizes "conservatism" pretty comprehensively.

The United States, as in so many things, is an outlier. In the other western democracies "liberals" are generally considered centrists. Conservatives are right-of-centre & there is generally another left-of-centre party "social democrats" (as well as, often, a variety of other parties). I think it's reached the point in the US where the rigid two party system has become a negative reality. It's possible Trump, who advocates things no "libertarian conservative" could support, could lead to the emergence of a viable third, or even a fourth party. But it's hard to see how that would play out in the US political system.



Nonsense.

It's not people "wailing" that are the issue, it's climate scientists evaluating the evidence & warning of the possible consequences of inaction..

The world has lots of "money to spare". For instance, it's able to spend 1.7 trillion dollars every year on weapons.

"Right or wrong" ... now that's a powerful intellectual argument. :rolleyes:

This discussion is the problem with a 2 party system. Politics should never be binary and voters should not have binary choice, that will only create a division and force a lot of people to be for or against a certain policy without compromise.
 
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Republican =/= conservative same as Democrat =/= liberal. Different words that have different meanings but share some common attributes. This coffee I'm drinking isn't ice cream just because it has cream in it, for example.

What? You're saying there are only two possible, binary opposites? There's coffee with a bit of cream, coffee with a bit more cream, coffee with a lot of cream ... & there's iced coffee.
 
What? You're saying there are only two possible, binary opposites? There's coffee with a bit of cream, coffee with a bit more cream, coffee with a lot of cream ... & there's iced coffee.
And then there's non-dairy creamer (Mitt Romney?) and Irish cream (so it's a bit of a stretch in this discussion seeing as he was a Democrat, but that's gotta be Kennedy).
 
And then there's non-dairy creamer (Mitt Romney?) and Irish cream (so it's a bit of a stretch in this discussion seeing as he was a Democrat, but that's gotta be Kennedy).

Yet in the USA they are all called cream/non-cream. That is what the 2 partysystem causes. Who wants to walk in a coffeeshop that only gives you the choice of coffee with or without cream?!?
 
What? You're saying there are only two possible, binary opposites? There's coffee with a bit of cream, coffee with a bit more cream, coffee with a lot of cream ... & there's iced coffee.
Not sure why this is so hard to follow. I asked what PocketZeven meant by the word "conservative". He said Republican. They are two different things. Some Republicans subscribe to some conservative ideas. They lean that way but they also demonstrably ignore some conservative principles. Republican is a political party, conservatism is an ideology. Ice cream has cream in it and so does my coffee. That doesn't mean my coffee is ice cream because it also has some cream in it, just like it doesn't mean Republican = conservative simply because they ascribe to whichever conservative principles are convenient and appeal to their base.

Yet in the USA they are all called cream/non-cream. That is what the 2 partysystem causes. Who wants to walk in a coffeeshop that only gives you the choice of coffee with or without cream?!?
No they aren't just cream and non cream. You can buy 5% cream, half and half cream, 18% cream, whipping cream and probably other versions of cream I never noticed. I favour half and half in Canada but I've shopped in the U.S. More appropriately, cream without fat in it is known as fat free cream. See where I'm going? The essence of cream is fat but you can still call something cream even if it has no fat in it.
 
Even if that is true the solution isnt the electoral college, but improving the voting process. It is undemocratic in the sence that not all votes have the same power.
Bollacks for two reasons. One, as I have established earlier, we are a republic, and for a very good reason. Our founders have rejected democracy for the very ideals that they represent (Mob Rule). Going back to the Kavanaugh confirmation, what do you think that those 300 protesters that were arrested yesterday were doing IF you really think about it? They had a mob mentality and that they were using the power of numbers to shout down a minority. That is why we have representatives to vote for us.

Before I get to point number two, I have to ask a question first, do you believe in the fact that there is such a thing as illegal immigration?
 
Bollacks for two reasons. One, as I have established earlier, we are a republic, and for a very good reason. Our founders have rejected democracy for the very ideals that they represent (Mob Rule). Going back to the Kavanaugh confirmation, what do you think that those 300 protesters that were arrested yesterday were doing IF you really think about it? They had a mob mentality and that they were using the power of numbers to shout down a minority. That is why we have representatives to vote for us.

Before I get to point number two, I have to ask a question first, do you believe in the fact that there is such a thing as illegal immigration?

No the 300 protestors were using their right to protest to convince the senate to not vote for kavanaugh. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that. If not for protestors women and coloured people would still have no voting rights.

Please look in to the history of the electoral college it was specifically a concession made to the slaveowners of the south. Do you even know how the electoral college works?

Of course there is illegal immigration. There is illegal immigration in most western countries. But the fact is that illegal immigration is much and much less a problem then especially Trump claims it to be. Please look at the statistics and facts before making a judgment. I have family members who were once illegal and knew a lot of people who were. These people are the opposite of criminals, rapists etc.
 
Bollacks for two reasons. One, as I have established earlier, we are a republic, and for a very good reason. Our founders have rejected democracy for the very ideals that they represent (Mob Rule). Going back to the Kavanaugh confirmation, what do you think that those 300 protesters that were arrested yesterday were doing IF you really think about it? They had a mob mentality and that they were using the power of numbers to shout down a minority. That is why we have representatives to vote for us.

Bollocks? Really? A lot of people in the United States would agree with PocketZeven.

The founders "rejected democracy" because they were concerned about protecting their privileges. That's why they said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

and then continued to sanction slavery for another 80 years. That's bollocks ... if you ask me.

Our founders have rejected democracy for the very ideals that they represent (Mob Rule).

Ignoring the excruciating syntax of your sentence : "mob rule" isn't one of the "ideals" of democracy & it's pretty evident that there many, many democratic countries in the world that don't suffer from mob rule.
 
Please look in to the history of the electoral college it was specifically a concession made to the slaveowners of the south.
Again, Bollacks. The concession to the slaveowners was that blacks were to be counted as 3/5ths of a person in the census. Compared to the plague that is illegal immigration today, that small concession at least provided a very good estimate on how many slaves there were in the US at any one time.

Speaking of which...

and then continued to sanction slavery for another 80 years. That's bollocks ... if you ask me.
You are seriously going to play the privilege card? Seriously? Do you actually know HOW slavery started in America? It started with a black man saying that "I bought him" in court. Slavery is very much an African tradition, where there are more slaves compared to the rest of the world.

Before that statement, people were brought over to serve a period of seven years and no more on their own free will in exchange for passage to America.
 
So the investigation only has meaning if it has the outcome you want?

I actually agree the investigation was completely meaningless. I mean, I'm curious what they were hoping to find beside a bunch of he-said-she-said stories.
 
So the investigation only has meaning if it has the outcome you want?
By 'meaningless' I meant that the investigation probably would not have affected the Republican Senators' opinion on Kavanaugh, even if it showed overwhelming evidence that he was indeed guilty of sexual misconduct.
 
By 'meaningless' I meant that the investigation probably would not have affected the Republican Senators' opinion on Kavanaugh, even if it showed overwhelming evidence that he was indeed guilty of sexual misconduct.
But it did, though. One senator refused to vote for him. That is why the result was only 50-48 instead of 51-49 like it was during the cloture vote.
 
Again, Bollacks. The concession to the slaveowners was that blacks were to be counted as 3/5ths of a person in the census. Compared to the plague that is illegal immigration today, that small concession at least provided a very good estimate on how many slaves there were in the US at any one time.

Speaking of which...

You are seriously going to play the privilege card? Seriously? Do you actually know HOW slavery started in America? It started with a black man saying that "I bought him" in court. Slavery is very much an African tradition, where there are more slaves compared to the rest of the world.

Before that statement, people were brought over to serve a period of seven years and no more on their own free will in exchange for passage to America.

You really are not quite grasping the point. Slave owners wanted to have their cake & eat it too: they wanted to deny their slaves the most basic human rights while at the same time COUNTING them as contributing towards their own voting power at the federal level.

It's entirely besides the point HOW slavery started in Africa. What we are concerned about is the United States. You praise the Founders for resisting the (imagined) dangers of "mob rule", while ignoring the glaring hypocrisy of them talking about equality, & the unalienable right to liberty while they officially sanction slavery? That's the thing about a lot of conservatives - they have a really screwed up sense of values (IMO).
 
The democratic party leadership is so terrible. The entire party is composed of either relics of the past with almost zero relevance in 2018 (Feinstein, Pelosi) or attention-seeking opportunists (Kamala Harris, Cory Booker) or all but un-electable leftists (Warren, Sanders). It's just a shifty, powerless coalition, with nobody really at the helm, that continues to make terrible decisions. Pelosi promising to investigate Kavanaugh should democrats win the congress is just another strategic blunder...the entire advantage democrats had going into November was the enthusiasm gap. The grinding fight over the Kav. nomination reduced it, and this 'promise' will likely eliminate it completely. Republicans will actually have a reason to vote now...they'll probably even advertise Pelosi's pledge, with her face all over it... The dems chose the wrong hill to die on and the wrong leaders to follow into battle.

Now that I think of it, I'm just about certain the Kennedy retirement was a carefully orchestrated McConnell strategy. What better way to motivate the republican base than a supreme court fight.

Its disappointing to see such a lack of political acumen from the left side of the aisle, the republicans have been straight up steamrolling them for half a decade now. Of course, you could also say that the republicans have been unnecessarily ruthless to the point of pushing the republic to a yielding point. I don't see myself as belonging to either side, but the one-sidedness of the political fight in the last few years is hard to watch, especially knowing I think we are better off as a country if both sides are in the conversation.

As an aside, the whole hearing with Ford and Kavanaugh was a debacle. It never should have happened. It should have been an FBI investigation from day 1 and a closed-door senate hearing. I think the entire senate is to blame for that one.

/I hate everything
 
I actually agree the investigation was completely meaningless. I mean, I'm curious what they were hoping to find beside a bunch of he-said-she-said stories.
With a 35 year old allegation, no corroborating witnesses and no forensics I would assume they didn't expect to find a thing but did the best they could with what they had.

By 'meaningless' I meant that the investigation probably would not have affected the Republican Senators' opinion on Kavanaugh, even if it showed overwhelming evidence that he was indeed guilty of sexual misconduct.
What would qualify as overwhelming evidence?
 
Except...she didn't. She specifically didn't. She didn't, in the same sentence in which the cited bit is contained. She didn't, before the cited bit. You have to want her to have said what she didn't say in order to not see, to not acknowledge, what she did say.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

She says you could put half of Trump's supporters into this group. She says they have these attributes. She says they are irredeemable, but that they are not quote unquote America, which I take to mean that they don't represent American values, ie. they are un-American.

Turn off your outrage and just read it. It may not be what she meant to communicate, but she fell into the same trap of labelling a portion of the people she hoped to represent with all sorts of horrible things. Saying "well, if I wanted to generalise I could say this" doesn't switch that off, any more than Trump saying that he assumes that some of the people that Mexico sends are good people negates him saying that they're sending rapists and murderers.

But let's be sensible about this and recognise that both sides played the game of belittling their opposition, at least to some extent. It's what politics is in modern America.

If your argument is that what she did say somehow negates the above, you're going to have to spell that out in more steps than simply repeating the word "didn't" a lot. We can have a rational conversation about this, but only if you throw away the cheap shots and rhetoric and actually explain your position.
 
The problem (as I see it) with the American political system is that it is intended to have a rational foundation but evolved, through practical necessity & expediency, with a large number of irrational, quirky features. Among these are the huge disparities in the sizes/populations of the various states, the electoral college, state control of the electoral process, gerrymandering &, of course, lobbying & good old traditional graft & corruption.

So ... the GOP can control a majority of the state houses & governorships & therefore exert partisan influence on the electoral process in those states which then influences the outcome of national elections. Of course, the Democrats attempt to do the same thing when they can, so the whole process is tainted with partisan meddling. On the national level, having ONE more senator, from who-knows-what state, can have a massive effect on important decisions - which is what we see with the Kavanaugh nomination.

Personally, I think Trump had the right to nominate Kavanaugh & have him confirmed ... the problem lies more in the GOP blocking Garland's nomination. Obama was a two term President who won significant majorities of the popular vote each election - he was entitled to nominate a third Justice IMO. The Democratic opposition to Kavanaugh was driven mostly by anger over the Republican senates refusal to even hold hearings for Garland. Trump, a President who lost the popular vote by a significant margin, now has two nominees on the SCOTUS after only two years. It's quite possible that, given the makeup of the court, he might have the opportunity to nominate a third justice within the next two years. This is not right ... or at least it's not rational.

The political process has become less about democracy & the will of the people & more about manipulation of the system by two highly divided & partisan players, where "winning" - defeating the other side - is everything. Sad.
 
Left/liberal bastion mainstream news corporation CNN abjectly admits triumphal, history-making Trump/conservative win, and potential big boost for Republicans in the looming midterm elections. Prosperity and a durably conservative-majority Supreme Court have been delivered, as promised. Now if his foreign policy avoids wars and shuts down a few disastrous military interventions abroad, and we can think about reelecting him in 2020. How is that for amazing?

(CNN) Donald Trump may have never had a better time being President.

Only a re-election party on the night of November 3, 2020, could possibly offer the same vindication for America's most unconventional commander in chief as the 36 hours in which two foundational strands of his political career are combining in a sudden burst of history.
Trump will become an undeniably consequential President with the Senate due to vote Saturday to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, consecrating the conservative majority that has long been the impossible dream of the GOP.
On Friday, Trump had celebrated the best jobs data for 49 years as the unemployment rate dipped to 3.7%, offering more proof of a vibrant economy that the President says has been unshackled by his tax-reduction program and scything cuts to business regulations.


While his 2016 election campaign was most notable for swirling chaos and shattered norms, Trump's vows to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court and to fire up the economy were the glue for his winning coalition.
The struggle to confirm Kavanaugh split the country, deepened mistrust festering between rival lawmakers and threatens to further drag the Supreme Court into Washington's poisoned political stew. But Trump stuck with it and ground out a win.
So he has every right to return to voters in the next four weeks ahead of the midterm elections to argue he has done exactly what he said he would do. He now has a strong message to convince grass-roots Republicans that it's well worth showing up at the polls.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/donald-trump-presidency-supreme-court-economy/index.html


A President of consequence
There is more evidence than the soon-to-be reshaped Supreme Court and the roaring economy to make a case that Trump is building a substantial presidency that in many ways looks like a historic pivot point, despite its extremely controversial nature.
 
Not surprised at all... a rapist president picks a rapist to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Look, I'm no liberal hippie SJW or anything, but what even is our country coming to.
 
Being accused of rape isn't anywhere close to being an actual convicted rapist. So again, do you have sources that prove both Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh are rapists?
No, because there's been no official ruling declaring that Trump or Kavanaugh committed rape. However, studies show that only two out of 100 women who claim they are raped are making false accusations. You seem to come off as if Kavanaugh and Trump's accusers of sexual misbehavior are all liars and doing it for attention.

Unless evidence proves otherwise, I see no reason why not to believe the woman if she alleges she is raped or violated in a different form. Imagine living through that type of assault, which never can be truly healed, only be told you're "ruining his life" or "lying"?
 
No, because there's been no official ruling declaring that Trump or Kavanaugh committed rape. However, studies show that only two out of 100 women who claim they are raped are making false accusations. You seem to come off as if Kavanaugh and Trump's accusers of sexual misbehavior are all liars and doing it for attention.

Unless evidence proves otherwise, I see no reason why not to believe the woman if she alleges she is raped or violated in a different form. Imagine living through that type of assault, which never can be truly healed, only be told you're "ruining his life" or "lying"?

There is absolutely no evidence that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist, other than one woman's story, yet you choose to believe her and call him a rapist. Does he not deserve the same thing? Unless evidence proves otherwise, I see no reason why not to believe the man. It certainly isn't right or just to brand him a rapist because of a 35 year old he said, she said.

Edit: I may be mistaken, there may be more than one claim against Kavanaugh but the sentiment remains the same.
 
Back