[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[BobK]

In a pure democracy 51% of the population has 100% of the power. That's the core of the tyranny of the majority. In a pure republic they would have only 51% of the power, while the others would still retain 49% of the power.

 

[Biggles]

So I'm an advocate for slave states because part of the the comprimise was intended to attempt to mitigate the power of slave states not increase it? Not only is that illogical it's incredibly insulting.

You're kidding right? Just because apologists for slavery try & make this convoluted argument doesn't make it valid. They also like to pretend the Civil War was fought over "state's rights". You deny people their most fundamental human rights, you hold them captive in your state & then try & include them in your head count to bolster your own political power in order to ensure you continue to have the right to hold them captive? You don't see that this is a BS position?

 

[Sprite]

LOL. It's nice that the "special interest" of slave owners continues to have a present-day champion in JohnnyP.

I'm not sure that is what was stated. @Johnnypenso stated historical fact and not an opinion so I agree your comment came off a little harsh and rude.

 

[samurai8juice]

You're kidding right? Just because apologists for slavery try & make this convoluted argument doesn't make it valid. They also like to pretend the Civil War was fought over "state's rights". You deny people their most fundamental human rights, you hold them captive in your state & then try & include them in your head count to bolster your own political power in order to ensure you continue to have the right to hold them captive? You don't see that this is a BS position?

"You're kidding, right?"

He was merely stating a true fact, not taking a position on said fact.

 

[mister dog]

But we're all white supremacists right? /s

 

[BobK]

But we're all white supremacists right? /s

No, only the white folks. The mantra seems to be if you're white, you're practically by definition a white supremacist.

 

[McLaren]

They also like to pretend the Civil War was fought over "state's rights".

Just as some like to pretend it was fought simply over keeping/abolishing slavery and there wasn't any other impact from the economic, political, & ideological differences between the North & the South because they were growing into 2 different territories.

State's rights were a big part in the causes for the War, it's just that the South had issues maintaining a consistent stance such as Southern states wanting the rights to keep slavery, but not liking that Northern states holding the right to protect fugitive slaves. It boiled down to the South beginning to feel shut out from the Federal Govt. because the North was growing rapidly in its economy & European immigration in comparison, which would influence its ability to hold majority power & its stance on abolishing slavery in new territories would decrease the South's influence even more as the South relied heavily on slavery to drive its plantation system.

 

[Tornado]

LOL. It's nice that the "special interest" of slave owners continues to have a present-day champion in JohnnyP.

Not as nice as you showing exactly why Americans tend to take foreign opinion of domestic matters so lightly. He tells you that you had the intent behind a specific part of Constitution era population counting backward (in a post that you started by posturing about how much more expertise foreigners had with how the US government works than vice versa, no less) and you jump all the way the hell to comparing him to a slave owner and slavery apologists? Was your post mostly written in advance?

 

[fatkrakr]

The new democrat argument for everything, agree with me or your a racist.

 

[huskeR32]

The new democrat argument for everything, agree with me or your a racist.

"Stop lumping everybody together, people that I'm now going to lump together."

 

[samurai8juice]

Just as some like to pretend it was fought simply over keeping/abolishing slavery and there wasn't any other impact from the economic, political, & ideological differences between the North & the South because they were growing into 2 different territories.

State's rights were a big part in the causes for the War, it's just that the South had issues maintaining a consistent stance such as Southern states wanting the rights to keep slavery, but not liking that Northern states holding the right to protect fugitive slaves. It boiled down to the South beginning to feel shut out from the Federal Govt. because the North was growing rapidly in its economy & European immigration in comparison, which would influence its ability to hold majority power & its stance on abolishing slavery in new territories would decrease the South's influence even more as the South relied heavily on slavery to drive its plantation system.

Don't forget that within the CSA itself, it battled with states' rights advocates.

 

[DDastardly00]

Clinton campaign asking for Volunteers to help out with Michigan and Wisconsin recounts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-campaign-seeks-volunteers-for-recounts/

 

[Sanji Himura]

"Stop lumping everybody together, people that I'm now going to lump together."

Except he didn't do that. He cited a general conclusion that anyone looking at the Democrat party today would have if they looked at it with fresh eyes, or did the "Basket full of Deplorables" comment not offend you in some way?

 

[Keef]

Hey, at least we aren't banning porn like V for Vendetta. That movie did air the in UK, right?

 

[huskeR32]

Except he didn't do that. He cited a general conclusion that anyone looking at the Democrat party today would have if they looked at it with fresh eyes, or did the "Basket full of Deplorables" comment not offend you in some way?

Um...

The new democrat argument for everything, agree with me or your a racist.

You're right, no broad-brush labeling happening there.

And yes, I found Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment to be in poor taste. Over-generalizing and name-calling on both sides is pathetic, and often a sign that the speaker is an idiot who can't come up with a legitimate argument.

 

[Joey D]

I guess to be more accurate, many liberals, especially the more outspoken ones, are now using that argument to justify whatever it is they are trying to justify.

I've also been told on Facebook that I'm a racist, Fascist, sexist, and literally Hitler because I've defended Trump even though I didn't vote for him nor supported his campaign. I've also been called these things because I expressed that I voted for Evan McMullin, who pretty much anyone outside of Utah probably doesn't know. I only voted for him because I learned about him when I got here and upon researching him, felt like he was sort of in the middle of Trump's rhetoric and Johnson's.

Both sides are throwing around a lot of unjustified insults and it's a big downfall of partisan politics. I really hope in the next few election cycles a third party candidate emerges to break the deadlock we have with the two party system.

 

[Danoff]

Hey, at least we aren't banning porn like V for Vendetta. That movie did air the in UK, right?

The US has obscenity laws. Check out the part where a recent porn movie you may have seen was found to be obscene by a jury (at least after 2007).

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh the delicious irony:

 

[fatkrakr]

Oh the delicious irony:

I wonder if he still takes Trumps election as a personal insult like he claimed during the campaign.

 

[Dotini]

I wonder if he still takes Trumps election as a personal insult like he claimed during the campaign.

Undoubtedly he does. But first of all he should take it as a professional insult, since he and the Democratic party were routed by an lone, untutored outsider.


- Obama eats crow for Christmas, not turkey.

 

[mister dog]

Here's the full speech for those interested. Love him or hate him, he managed to do it.

 

[Scaff]

So three things I've picked up on that raised eyebrows.

The first are worrying examples of shotgun diplomacy, with regard to Pakistan (the fawning praise of which has annoyed the hell out of India - create friction between two nuclear states with poor impulse control) and then the recognition of Taiwan and it's President (which goes against all US diplomatic policy since the late '70s and further winds China up).

Then we have the assurance that his support for the Standing Rock pipeline has nothing at all to do with him having investments in the company building it and the company project managing it.

I have to be honest that the latter actually concerns me less than the former, as I don't believe that Trump can use the political style that got him the White House on a world stage without serious consequences being a likely end result before his term is up.

 

[fatkrakr]

So three things I've picked up on that raised eyebrows.

The first are worrying examples of shotgun diplomacy, with regard to Pakistan (the fawning praise of which has annoyed the hell out of India - create friction between two nuclear states with poor impulse control) and then the recognition of Taiwan and it's President (which goes against all US diplomatic policy since the late '70s and further winds China up).

Then we have the assurance that his support for the Standing Rock pipeline has nothing at all to do with him having investments in the company building it and the company project managing it.

I have to be honest that the latter actually concerns me less than the former, as I don't believe that Trump can use the political style that got him the White House on a world stage without serious consequences being a likely end result before his term is up.

Hopefully we are done making American policy that tries to please other countries and instead put American interests first and worry about what others countries think second. Its time we worry about our yard and let the other countries worry about their yard. Not to say we are done helping other countries, just not before we help ourselves.

 

[Dotini]

...worrying examples...actually concerns me...

You probably worry too much about too little. He's said nothing consequential and of course done nothing at all. It's all superlatives and blather. The time to have worried was centuries in the past when Britain ran the show.

 

[TenEightyOne]

He's said nothing consequential and of course done nothing at all.

I have to disagree - the very act of being in a certain position and holding a conversation with a particular party (however banal the chat) is in itself an act that can cause diplomatic difficulty.

I can only see two ways of looking at it; trump is aware of the ramifications and held the conversation anyway or he's unaware of the ramifications. Neither is a very re-assuring consideration.

 

[fatkrakr]

I have to disagree - the very act of being in a certain position and holding a conversation with a particular party (however banal the chat) is in itself an act that can cause diplomatic difficulty.

I can only see two ways of looking at it; trump is aware of the ramifications and held the conversation anyway or he's unaware of the ramifications. Neither is a very re-assuring consideration.

So exactly what do you see as the ramifications for a president elect taking a phone call from a countries president that's congratulating him on his election? I mean seriously paranoid much?

 

[Scaff]

Hopefully we are done making American policy that tries to please other countries and instead put American interests first and worry about what others countries think second. Its time we worry about our yard and let the other countries worry about their yard. Not to say we are done helping other countries, just not before we help ourselves.

Then he should do just that and keep his mouth shut, and if you honestly think that what he has said doesn't potentially have an impact on the US and it's interests then you've apparently got little idea of what he's actually said and the situations he's commented on.

You probably worry too much about too little. He's said nothing consequential and of course done nothing at all. It's all superlatives and blather. The time to have worried was centuries in the past when Britain ran the show.

Nothing consequential about recognising Taiwan?

The country who's government believes it's the rightful state that should govern One China (just as China does)!

No impact in favouring one side of the Pakistan / India historical friction, the two nuclear armed powered with the lowest level of launch protocols on the planet, and who have gone to war multiple times?

The best retort you can come up with to that is don't worry, here's a straw man to try and distract things.

If you want to talk about the history of British imperialism then go for it, I'm more than aware of how much damage gunboat diplomacy of this nature causes. Trump and yourself both seem to however be frighteningly unaware of how that's played out before.

So exactly what do you see as the ramifications for a president elect taking a phone call from a countries president that's congratulating him on his election? I mean seriously paranoid much?

Taking a phone call? None particularly.

The manner in which those calls have been discussed and the recognition to the parties given? Massive.

That does however require you to be aware if the political, trade and military ramifications of those actions.

Tell me, what do you know about the history of Pakistan and India,band the history of China and Taiwan?

Oh and that's without mentioning that the Pakistani Secret Service has a long history of links and ties with the Taliban, AQ and more. It's also likely to have been complicit in the deaths of US and NATO troops as well. With a wiki leak document from US intelligence stating that it's effectively a terrorist organization.

Knowledge, it's a great thing.

 

[fatkrakr]

Then he should do just that and keep his mouth shut, and if you honestly think that what he has said doesn't potentially have an impact on the US and it's interests then you've apparently got little idea of what he's actually said and the situations he's commented on.

Feel free to tell your leaders to keep their mouths shut. We let ours talk to whoever they please and aren't worried a phone call might lead to WW3. If a phone call can start it then it was gonna start anyway. Remember it was to congratulate him on the election not set foreign policy.

 

[Dotini]

Then he should...keep his mouth shut...don't worry

We can agree on at least this much. If the thrill of fear and great worry is crawling up your spine now, just wait until he is inaugurated, seated in the Oval Office, and playing out the role of president and commander-in-chief. Then we'll all have something tangible to worry about. Or marvel at, as the case may be. I could be his victim even more readily than you. I'm invested in the heart of a sanctuary city which is now threatened with a substantial cut in federal funds for a variety basics like schools, police and transportation. At least my "worry" is clear and present. Why worry about things you cannot control and have no effect upon you? Unless you want to make them a part of your life, to savor the thrill of fear and joy of the hunt.

 

[Scaff]

Feel free to tell your leaders to keep their mouths shut. We let ours talk to whoever they please and aren't worried a phone call might lead to WW3. If a phone call can start it then it was gonna start anyway. Remember it was to congratulate him on the election not set foreign policy.

So that's a no then, your not aware of the situation's he's just got involved in and commented on.

Further highlighted by the fact you don't understand that the way those phone calls were then communicated publicly are setting foreign policy for the US.

Trump have just overturn a US foreign policy that's been in place since 1979 and favour one nuclear power over its rival and neighbor, rather than remaining neutral.

So yes he has set foreign policy, and one that differs markedly from previous administrations (both Democrate and Republican).

Oh and what any other government says is a straw man, you want Trump to sort out your yard and let other countries sort out theirs. That isn't what he's doing.

We can agree on at least this much. If the thrill of fear and great worry is crawling up your spine now, just wait until he is inaugurated, seated in the Oval Office, and playing out the role of president and commander-in-chief. Then we'll all have something tangible to worry about. Or marvel at, as the case may be. I could be his victim even more readily than you. I'm invested in the heart of a sanctuary city which it now threatened with a substantial cut in federal funds for a variety basics like schools, police and transportation. At least my "worry" is clear and present. Why worry about things you cannot control and have no effect upon you? Unless you want to make them a part of your life, to savor the thrill of fear and joy of the hunt.

You are aware that it possible to consider a situation and show concern about it without it becoming all consuming?

This is a potential change to US foreign policy, and such will impact on the wider world.

I also have family and friends in the US, and work for an American company, so if you don't mind I will carry on discussing the situation, because yes they will impact on me.