[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Joey D]

Really? Or is it just that there's a difference between 'democracy' and 'democracy', and people just can't see eye to eye about what 'democracy' means. Same word can have one meaning to some and another to others. That is not a problem in their political views but a language related difference, which shouldn't be too difficult thing to grasp, the word 'After' means anus in German. Currently the US is a republic therefore not a democracy argument is basically the same as saying that people are wrong for calling a banana a fruit because a banana isn't a grapefruit rather than explaining how a banana isn't a fruit. That's not changing before someone tries to contradict the multiple definitions of democracy that do support the idea that the US is a democracy the opposing part of the argument won't even have the information that could make them change their stance on the subject.

Or have we suddenly moved into a world where governments and their power sources cannot be discussed in any other language than the one in their constitutions, which in America's case is 18th century English, and people should just figure that out by themselves?

Well this is a thread about the US Presidential election and the government pertaining to the US, so I do think it is important to focus on what it means in the US.

I get words mean different things in different languages, that still doesn't change the fact that a democracy and a republic, at their core, are fundamentally different in the English language. A democracy, at its core, will always be about majority rule and having the people directly vote on laws that govern them. A republic, at its core, will always be about electing representatives for a group of individuals to represent them while making laws. I suspect most places in Europe that people are calling a democracy are really a republic, but as I've stated, I don't know enough about European governments to say that for certain.

 

[andrea]

What are you doing America?

 

[xyloscissor]

What are you doing America?

Those confirmation hearings have always been ugly and most of the time it's partisan politics. I don't know much about her but I'd guess she is no worse than the last one.

IMO seeing how badly our system is going it's clear that a privatization of our education system is in order, has Trump said anything about that?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

IMO seeing how badly our system is going it's clear that a privatization of our education system is in order, has Trump said anything about that?

The only thing I know that he has said for sure is that he wants to move away from common core and give individual states more control over their individual curriculum, which is a terrible idea.

 

[xyloscissor]

The only thing I know that he has said for sure is that he wants to move away from common core and give individual states more control over their individual curriculum, which is a terrible idea.

Common core is fine and could be used as a basic minimum over the states, that way it's a speed bump and individual curriculum can also apply. TBH the common core and standardized testings are a bare bones minimum, I'm speaking more of something substantial.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm speaking more of something substantial.

Less standardised testing, more focus on assessment for learning. Individual curriculum needs to be tailored to meet the needs of future learners, just as much as those students in class today.

 

[UKMikey]

You miss quoted the Constitution there, this is what the link you posted actually said:



The part you put in bold in your post isn't said in the Constitution and isn't synonymous with representative democracy.

If you click on the link for the definition of Republican this is what it says:



Feel free to give your opinion on what is stated, but don't quote it to look like something it's not. That's not a good way to debate.

I don't know the US Constitution off by heart and quoted directly from a site which was provided for me. I don't appreciate the implication that I deliberately doctored the quote to look different. Any mistakes are the site's, not mine.

I can supply a screen shot if you like. Although I'll probably be accused of doctoring the web page if that happens.

 

[fatkrakr]

What are you doing America?

If they removed the TV cameras none of that would be said and the conformations would take a 1/4 of the time.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The only thing I know that he has said for sure is that he wants to move away from common core and give individual states more control over their individual curriculum, which is a terrible idea.

When the curriculum is engineered to confuse the parents, then it fails. Sorry, but I would rather know WHAT the schools are teaching my children (if I have any) than have any perception of a nationalized standard.

Besides, education is not an authority granted by the Federal Government, and thus should be granted to the States.

 

[AerodyManiac]

Trump has a point, even if it's exaggerated. Many people hopping the boarder aren't good people are are definitely a reason drugs are making their way into the country. With the criminalization of drugs, you're going to get criminals doing criminal things, including rape.

Although I can't say that you're absolutely wrong, comparison of recent studies has shown that the results are rather inconsistent, and that one should not immediately jump to the conclusion that immigrants, lawful or unlawful, bring along crime, and that I believe, applies to Mexicans as well.

As the link says:

The 1994 U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform compared crime in American cities on the Mexican border to crime in non-border cities and found that crime rates in border cities were generally lower than rates in non-border cities.

Another quote from the conclusion of the same link, for fear of being accused of editing sources deliberately so they can fit my argument better:

In conclusion, we find that it would be a mistake to assume that immigrants as a group are more prone to crime than other groups, or that they should be viewed with more suspicion than others.

---​

I honestly don't think Trump is a racist, he does have some bigoted and prejudice views on some things, but I wouldn't call him a racist, more of an idiot that doesn't know how to phrase things properly. When the media edits things to make it sound like something it's not, then the public is misled.

But then public image is often based on the person's expression of words and his actions, right? And one of the elements of racism is prejudice regarding a different race, don't you think?

I can't think of a single thing BuzzFeed does that would be considered journalism. Sure there are some fun lists and fun quizzes, but when it comes to news they are worse then CNN and Fox New combined.

Sometimes they were the first ones to report news that could be followed on by other news agencies, with an example being their report on pro-Trump fake news produced in Macedonia. So I don't think they are that worthless.

With that said however, I do think that one should not treat BuzzFeed News as their only source of credible news, as it usually churns out news that is only favourable to a particular side of the political spectrum in elections, and one can become quite biased when asked to provide evidence for his political beliefs if he does so.

Then you don't know what is.

And you are the only one who knows the very definition of 'racism' and who it applies to, shall I assume?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Although I can't say that you're absolutely wrong, comparison of recent studies has shown that the results are rather inconsistent, and that one should not immediately jump to the conclusion that immigrants, lawful or unlawful, bring along crime, and that I believe, applies to Mexicans as well.

Umm, question, if illegal immigrants are crossing the border illegally, then is their crossing the border not a crime in itself? I'm sorry, but if they broke the law getting here in the first place, then are they not criminals, regardless if they did not violate some other law, like drug laws for example?

I believe that was the point that Trump was making.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Besides, education is not an authority granted by the Federal Government, and thus should be granted to the States.

The problem with allowing fifty states to set their own curriculum is that they can - and will - go in fifty different directions with it. There is a very real possibility that an education earned in one state will be of significantly different value to an education earned in another, and hence a risk that a tertiary education will not be accessible to large parts of the population.

The only way around this is a greater emphasis on standardised testing, and that is a very bad scenario. Standardised testing only engages the most basic thinking skills in students - understand and comprehension - when you need to engage their higher-order thinking skills, like the ability to analyse, evaluate and create. While you need the basic thinking skills to develop the more sophisticated forms, standardised testing doesn't come close to engaging the sophisticated forms.

I'm not saying that the states shouldn't have any autonomy in setting curriculum - only that there are fairly serious consequences to granting them that autonomy. Education may not be be within the federal government's purview, but there are merits to having a unified approach. For one, it will enable schools to use assessment for learning (as opposed to assessment of learning), which has been demonstrated to deliver outcomes much more consistently.

When the curriculum is engineered to confuse the parents, then it fails.

Reading a curriculum document is more of an art than a science. They tend to be quite political in nature, because they're written to satisfy all of the stakeholders. You can usually cut through a lot of the early stuff, which is the infrastructure for schools to write their own scope and sequence documents (which are the bridging documents that link individual programs to the curriculum). The stuff you want is in the middle - in particular the outcomes, which outline what a student should be able to do upon completion of the course.

 

[Com Fox]

I believe Trump was referring to the illegal immigrant Mexicans, not Mexicans in general. I do think calling all illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists is a bit unprofessional and a bit jump the gun but I don't think it's racist ad wanting to prevent them from coming illegally isn't IMO a bad idea since they are pretty much commiting a crime by coming over there (the idea of the wall and getting Mexico to pay portions of it is way too unrealistic though and I don't get how people can buy this as a proper solution).

 

[xyloscissor]

Illegals do bring crime, it starts off with the coyotes(people traffickers) who charge money to the families which they cannot afford. That creates leverage to force drug running and prostitution. Of course violence comes with it as well. So rape? Unfortunately it's true.

Not to mention the cartels and all the joy they bring.

None of that is racist.

 

[Legro]

Well this is a thread about the US Presidential election and the government pertaining to the US, so I do think it is important to focus on what it means in the US.

I get words mean different things in different languages, that still doesn't change the fact that a democracy and a republic, at their core, are fundamentally different in the English language. A democracy, at its core, will always be about majority rule and having the people directly vote on laws that govern them. A republic, at its core, will always be about electing representatives for a group of individuals to represent them while making laws. I suspect most places in Europe that people are calling a democracy are really a republic, but as I've stated, I don't know enough about European governments to say that for certain.

I can kind of see your point, and yet I kind of don't get how it was necessary to prove an European person wrong for calling the US system something it technically is by the European definition. Even after the European definition has been explained to be different and the person using it was technically correct. At the very least about the part that was meant by that word.

Anyway, I could continue the republic/democracy European/American definitions discussion because it actually is quite an interesting one, but at the same time it doesn't really have anything to do with the POTUS discussion.

 

[Joey D]

I don't know the US Constitution off by heart and quoted directly from a site which was provided for me. I don't appreciate the implication that I deliberately doctored the quote to look different. Any mistakes are the site's, not mine.

I can supply a screen shot if you like. Although I'll probably be accused of doctoring the web page if that happens.

I clicked the hyper link in your quote that said Section 4 and this is what it said:

That doesn't match what you posted which is why I was questioning it. You don't need to know the Constitution by heart, I don't expect you too. My issue lies with what you posted being different than the link you provided.

 

[xyloscissor]

That doesn't match what you posted which is why I was questioning it. You don't need to know the Constitution by heart, I don't expect you too. My issue lies with what you posted being different than the link you provided.

Well I did post a link that starts with a general outline of the document hoping some would gain a better understanding so, you can blame me for that one.

 

[Joey D]

Well I did post a link that starts with a general outline of the document hoping some would gain a better understanding so, you can blame me for that one.

If that's the case, then I do apologize @UKMikey. I had just clicked on the hyperlink within the quote itself since it appeared to be where the information came from. Going back to @xyloscissor original post, it does look like that link he provided says as much. I had no idea the forum automatically linked hyperlinks.

Looks like it was a misunderstanding and I was in the wrong. I'll remove that bit of my post as well.

 

[AerodyManiac]

Umm, question, if illegal immigrants are crossing the border illegally, then is their crossing the border not a crime in itself? I'm sorry, but if they broke the law getting here in the first place, then are they not criminals, regardless if they did not violate some other law, like drug laws for example?

I believe that was the point that Trump was making.

Although it is impossible to know what he is trying to say exactly, I believe the message that Trump is trying to say is that Mexicans are rapists, drug-traffickers and offenders of the law. I think so because there is no mention of 'crossing the border illegally', 'illegal immigrants' or anything of that sort in his speech. What he says is 'when Mexico sends its people...', which I believe refers to Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And you are the only one who knows the very definition of 'racism' and who it applies to, shall I assume?

I'm not, but your description doesn't fit the definition.

Although it is impossible to know what he is trying to say exactly, I believe the message that Trump is trying to say is that Mexicans are rapists, drug-traffickers and offenders of the law. I think so because there is no mention of 'crossing the border illegally', 'illegal immigrants' or anything of that sort in his speech. What he says is 'when Mexico sends its people...', which I believe refers to Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal.

It's isn't impossible to know what he said, just listen to the whole statement/speech instead of the soundbites, which is what it sounds like is all you've listened to so far.

 

[Dotini]

Umm, question, if illegal immigrants are crossing the border illegally, then is their crossing the border not a crime in itself? I'm sorry, but if they broke the law getting here in the first place, then are they not criminals, regardless if they did not violate some other law, like drug laws for example?

I believe that was the point that Trump was making.

Technically correct. But the current administration has not been enforcing this and other immigration-related laws, frustrating law enforcement personnel and rendering the law a moot point. I don't expect the Trump adminstration, however zealous they may be , to fix more than a fraction of this issue.

 

[McLaren]

If you're gonna try to make the argument based on what he's literally saying, then you're still wrong considering he added, "And some, I assume, are good people".

Clearly he's not talking about all Mexicans if he excuses "some". Not that it matters bc he has been referring to illegals when he talks about Mexico.

 

[mister dog]

I do think calling all illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists is a bit unprofessional and a bit jump the gun

Didn't he say that 'among the illegal immigrants entering from Mexico there are rapists'? Which is of an entirely different context than what the media wants you to believe; that he said all illegal immigrants from Mexico are rapists?

 

[CodeRedR51]

I don't know much about her but I'd guess she is no worse than the last one.

She has absolutely no experience, and wants to change the education system to promote "God's Kingdom" (her exact words). Huge NO for me. Get her out of there.

 

[Com Fox]

Didn't he say that 'among the illegal immigrants entering from Mexico there are rapists'? Which is of an entirely different context than what the media wants you to believe; that he said all illegal immigrants from Mexico are rapists?

In the speech I always heard "they're rapists" not "there are rapists".

 

[PeterJB]

I heard it as "their rapists".

 

[Danoff]

I heard it as "their rapists".

Like... they own rapists? Who owns rapists? They have some sort of militant rape army or something?

 

[mister dog]

edit, better video:

 

[PeterJB]

American rapists = our rapists*. Mexican rapists = their rapists.



*Ignore the fact that I'm not American

 

[Danoff]

American rapists = our rapists*. Mexican rapists = their rapists.



*Ignore the fact that I'm not American

Ooooooh.