Jump to content

What is wrong with America

Red Alert

By Red Alert,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted

I don't waste my time watching Michael Moore's liberally biased "Documentaries" either, so I won't be watching this one.

 

Sure, these films have some real content, but for each 5 minutes of footage, you would have to do half an hour of research into the facts without the bias and rhetoric......They are simply not worth watching whichever side of the fence produces them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deano6

Deano6

Posted
Posted
I can understand that Ohio Saint, too bad there are no others to choose from in the States. Then again, in the Netherlands we have around 15 political parties we can choose from for the general elections so the government is always a mix from those parties who need to make compromises. So, in the end a lot of the promises during campaign time are broken as soon as they start to govern... Currently the Dutch government exists of the Dutch equivalent of the Democrate and Republican parties in the US (or the Tories and Labour in the UK), imagine how much they had to compromise... Yet, a government with both Republicans and Democrats in it might be a better thing in your country as there would be less party clutter, maybe then they would actually achieve something in the US... ;)

 

 

Hmmm...having both republicans and democrats in the house & senate. That's a novel idea. I'm sure they'll get along great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
van Hanegem

van Hanegem

Posted
Posted
Hmmm...having both republicans and democrats in the house & senate. That's a novel idea. I'm sure they'll get along great.

 

I know, it's a load of... ;)

 

But suppose - in a ideal world - that representatives who have to vote could follow their own heart instead of following orders from their party, don't you think a government would achieve more then they do now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted

Powerful speech by Clinton. Trump such a narcissistic child and she is taking him apart.

 

"Donald Trump says, and this is a quote, 'I know more about ISIS than the generals do.'

 

No, Donald, you don't.” —Hillary

 

"A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." —Hillary

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Picard

Picard

Posted
Posted
Powerful speech by Clinton. Trump such a narcissistic child and she is taking him apart.

 

"Donald Trump says, and this is a quote, 'I know more about ISIS than the generals do.'

 

No, Donald, you don't.” —Hillary

 

"A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." —Hillary

 

:thumbup:

 

Love your sarcasm. You just demolished Hillary.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
van Hanegem

van Hanegem

Posted
Posted

 

Agreed, Trump is a vulgar man without any class. However, you don't have to worry that he'll make it to the presidency, when needed the outcome of the elections can always be manipulated. And if that doesn't work they can shoot the b*stard. They better do it before the 8th of november though, otherwise Mike Pence will replace him and nobody wants him either...

 

I can imagine Americans - both democrats and republicans - feeling like democracy has been stolen from them.

 

http://yournewswire.com/wikileaks-dnc-committed-election-fraud-against-bernie-sanders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted (edited)

I can imagine Americans - both democrats and republicans - feeling like democracy has been stolen from them.

 

 

While it has been true in the past that there have been elections where there has been little motivation to vote because the candidates garner little interest, this is the first election I will ever vote in, US or UK, where my motivation, and the motivation of the bulk of the electorate, will be voting specifically for the candidate they dislike the least.

 

Of course this is nothing really new, but I expect a very high turnout for this election based almost exclusively on this premise. And that will be a first.

 

That is not exactly the theft of democracy, but yes.....It can certainly feel like that.

 

I arrived in the US in 2000.....It has always seemed to me that things went tits up on my arrival. I am sincerely hoping that I was not to blame!!

Edited by Ohio Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites
van Hanegem

van Hanegem

Posted
Posted
While it has been true in the past that there have been elections where there has been little motivation to vote because the candidates garner little interest, this is the first election I will ever vote in, US or UK, where my motivation, and the motivation of the bulk of the electorate, will be voting specifically for the candidate they dislike the least.

 

Of course this is nothing really new, but I expect a very high turnout for this election based almost exclusively on this premise. And that will be a first.

 

That is not exactly the theft of democracy, but yes.....It can certainly feel like that.

 

I arrived in the US in 2000.....It has always seemed to me that things went tits up on my arrival. I am sincerely hoping that I was not to blame!!

 

With the "theft of democracy" I was referring to the manipulation within the Democratic Party who favoured Clinton and the mess within the Republican Party which led to the nomination of Trump. There are an awful lot of people who don't want anyone of them...

 

I won't blame you however... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted

I haven't met one person in UK who would consider voting Trump if they were resident of US. Does he appeal to any of our UKIP/right wing lot? The fact that 'he alone can defeat ISIS' must go down well with Batman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
van Hanegem

van Hanegem

Posted
Posted

Good pieces in The Guardian on what's wrong with the American establishment and the elite liberal media. I reckon all the stuff Wikileaks has published will open the eyes of many voters in the USA who'll use Trump to give those elites the finger. But will there be enough of them?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/31/the-podesta-emails-show-who-runs-america-and-how-they-do-it

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/13/liberal-media-bias-working-class-americans

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint86

Saint86

Posted
Posted
I haven't met one person in UK who would consider voting Trump if they were resident of US. Does he appeal to any of our UKIP/right wing lot? The fact that 'he alone can defeat ISIS' must go down well with Batman.

 

You've met people that would choose to vote for Hillary? That actually worries me more. They are both awful. But at least with Trump you see the evils you are getting up front. With Hillary there are untold cover ups, lies, political games etc etc.

 

I actually want trump to win because I think it will be hilarious watching the fall out. What power do you think he ultimately has... Obama gave the best years of his live to try and get through obama care and failed completely on gun control. The president is ultimately controlled by those around him, his/her very wealthy backers, and the senate.

 

If anything, the fact that Hilary clinton is at risk of losing the election, and allowed herself to be drawn into a personal **** stirring competition is evidence that she is not fit to "lead the western world"... What is she going to do against someone like Putin...

 

Sadly, all you can say about this election is that American voters have been totally failed by a system that only gives them 2 choices between 2 very flawed human beings... hopefully it will make people appreciate our own system a little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ohio Saint

Ohio Saint

Posted
Posted

The recent activity by the FBI worries me enormously. I would say the same if it had affected Trump in a negative way also. For a Govt. entity to so blatantly pass comment in a situation where they would normally be stoic is astonishing to say the least. They are certainly acting in a partisan manner. My gabber is totally flasted at their actions, and I re-iterate, my reaction would be the same if their target were reversed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
You've met people that would choose to vote for Hillary? That actually worries me more. They are both awful. But at least with Trump you see the evils you are getting up front. With Hillary there are untold cover ups, lies, political games etc etc.

 

I actually want trump to win because I think it will be hilarious watching the fall out. What power do you think he ultimately has... Obama gave the best years of his live to try and get through obama care and failed completely on gun control. The president is ultimately controlled by those around him, his/her very wealthy backers, and the senate.

 

If anything, the fact that Hilary clinton is at risk of losing the election, and allowed herself to be drawn into a personal **** stirring competition is evidence that she is not fit to "lead the western world"... What is she going to do against someone like Putin...

 

Sadly, all you can say about this election is that American voters have been totally failed by a system that only gives them 2 choices between 2 very flawed human beings... hopefully it will make people appreciate our own system a little more.

 

God if you think Clinton is worse than Trump I pity you.

Brainwashed.

She ain't likeable but is isn't a racist, misogynist, tax dodging lying facist with no coherent policy on anything.

The fact that some people think the email thing is as bad as sexual assault is quite disturbing. Sorry beggars belief anyone would consider voting for him and by extension must be some sort of cnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
van Hanegem

van Hanegem

Posted
Posted
God if you think Clinton is worse than Trump I pity you.

Brainwashed.

She ain't likeable but is isn't a racist, misogynist, tax dodging lying facist with no coherent policy on anything.

The fact that some people think the email thing is as bad as sexual assault is quite disturbing. Sorry beggars belief anyone would consider voting for him and by extension must be some sort of cnt.

 

So you prefer someone with a long history of being corrupt, who accepted 25 million dollars from the Saudi's while she knew those same people funded ISIS and oppress women and gay people? Someone who made a mess out of Libya so now this country is probably doomed forever? I guess you're in desperate need of some c*nt Whelk...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
The recent activity by the FBI worries me enormously. I would say the same if it had affected Trump in a negative way also. For a Govt. entity to so blatantly pass comment in a situation where they would normally be stoic is astonishing to say the least. They are certainly acting in a partisan manner. My gabber is totally flasted at their actions, and I re-iterate, my reaction would be the same if their target were reversed.

 

And to then back track a few days later with the 650,000 emails presumably unread (as Trump claims). Not sure how them pitching in and then quickly backing out will work for Clinton. She will tell it a being exonerated but it could also play into Trump's line of the establishment working for Hillary and the election being stolen from him.

 

I still don't understand how the electoral college works and how Gore lost the 2000 election despite getting more votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint si

saint si

Posted
Posted
I still don't understand how the electoral college works and how Gore lost the 2000 election despite getting more votes.

 

Each state has a number of "electors". Larger states (by population) have more electors. It's adjusted every so often to keep it roughly in line with the populations. So California has the most electors for example. Other big population centres also have high number of electors ... New York, Florida, Texas.

 

If a candidate wins a state they get ALL of its electors (putting to one side the idea of the "faithless elector"). Doesn't matter if they win by 1 vote or 1 million votes. The winner of the election is whoever gets 270+ electors (out of 538 total).

 

So a really tight race in California (for example) would see the loser still get a lots of popular votes, but zero electors. Meanwhile they could win a couple of small states by a landslide and still only get a small number of electors.

 

Just like California in the example above, Gore lost the whole of Florida in 2000 by just a few hundred votes and that swung the whole election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
Each state has a number of "electors". Larger states (by population) have more electors. It's adjusted every so often to keep it roughly in line with the populations. So California has the most electors for example. Other big population centres also have high number of electors ... New York, Florida, Texas.

 

If a candidate wins a state they get ALL of its electors (putting to one side the idea of the "faithless elector"). Doesn't matter if they win by 1 vote or 1 million votes. The winner of the election is whoever gets 270+ electors (out of 538 total).

 

So a really tight race in California (for example) would see the loser still get a lots of popular votes, but zero electors. Meanwhile they could win a couple of small states by a landslide and still only get a small number of electors.

 

Just like California in the example above, Gore lost the whole of Florida in 2000 by just a few hundred votes and that swung the whole election.

 

Thanks for that - it makes it clear as to how, but I still don't understand why. What is the advantage of such a system? - it just seems to introduce a whole range of distorting factors, adds complexity and reduce trust in the system for no obvious (to me) benefit. I get that it means 'California votes for Clinton' or 'Texas votes for Trump' etc but at the cost of disenfranchising nearly half the voters. What wrong with a direct election where you add up the votes and declare the winner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
Thanks for that - it makes it clear as to how, but I still don't understand why. What is the advantage of such a system? - it just seems to introduce a whole range of distorting factors, adds complexity and reduce trust in the system for no obvious (to me) benefit. I get that it means 'California votes for Clinton' or 'Texas votes for Trump' etc but at the cost of disenfranchising nearly half the voters. What wrong with a direct election where you add up the votes and declare the winner?

 

The WHY is buried in eighteenth century history but is now relevant. It was to provide a buffer in case the electorate voted in a raving loon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint si

saint si

Posted
Posted
Thanks for that - it makes it clear as to how, but I still don't understand why. What is the advantage of such a system? - it just seems to introduce a whole range of distorting factors, adds complexity and reduce trust in the system for no obvious (to me) benefit. I get that it means 'California votes for Clinton' or 'Texas votes for Trump' etc but at the cost of disenfranchising nearly half the voters. What wrong with a direct election where you add up the votes and declare the winner?

 

No idea, but i quickly Googled and found this... http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

 

thought this passage was quite interesting given current climate in UK... (but i'm in the wrong thread)

 

James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
No idea, but i quickly Googled and found this... http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

 

thought this passage was quite interesting given current climate in UK... (but i'm in the wrong thread)

 

James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.”

 

Yep, very apt. I wonder what Madison was thinking about. Too early to be about slavery and dictat of the north over south. He led the US into a war with Britain which they lost (although the Americans always claim it was a draw) so his judgement wasnt that great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chris27687

Chris27687

Posted
Posted
Thanks for that - it makes it clear as to how, but I still don't understand why. What is the advantage of such a system? - it just seems to introduce a whole range of distorting factors, adds complexity and reduce trust in the system for no obvious (to me) benefit. I get that it means 'California votes for Clinton' or 'Texas votes for Trump' etc but at the cost of disenfranchising nearly half the voters. What wrong with a direct election where you add up the votes and declare the winner?

 

We have the same basic electoral system - first past the post.

 

It's to limit the power of fringe parties as historically they have been seen as destabilising to national interests - rise of nazism etc.

 

The only truly democratic system is proportional representation - but certain political parties dont want that to happen as it would be to their detriment. For similar reasons the Republicans like repressing minorities abilities to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
Yep, very apt. I wonder what Madison was thinking about. Too early to be about slavery and dictat of the north over south. He led the US into a war with Britain which they lost (although the Americans always claim it was a draw) so his judgement wasnt that great.

 

He was thinking about the French revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
We have the same basic electoral system - first past the post.

 

It's to limit the power of fringe parties as historically they have been seen as destabilising to national interests - rise of nazism etc.

 

The only truly democratic system is proportional representation - but certain political parties dont want that to happen as it would be to their detriment. For similar reasons the Republicans like repressing minorities abilities to vote.

On the other hand, some might say the only truly democratic system is one where you can vote for an individual to represent you in Parliament, rather than just a party that will then hand pick a bunch of favourite lackeys to sit in the House and do what they're told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
God if you think Clinton is worse than Trump I pity you.

Brainwashed.

She ain't likeable but is isn't a racist, misogynist, tax dodging lying facist with no coherent policy on anything.

The fact that some people think the email thing is as bad as sexual assault is quite disturbing. Sorry beggars belief anyone would consider voting for him and by extension must be some sort of cnt.

 

I think Trump is a disgusting person and personality but I think that some of the things that Hilary has done and her track record make her potentially more dangerous in the White House. Plus the type of people who support her are the odious social justice warrior types, the rabid feminists and the gender benders with 58 different pronouns who are the type of people I despise so if I were American I couldn't bring myself to be on the same side as them. I'd probably abstain or vote for a third party candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...