Jump to content
270soft Forum

President Trump


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

36 minutes ago, Patine said:

"Protecting from the tyranny of the majority" sounds like the wording of a constitutional term that would be used by groups like the National Party of South Africa or the Rhodesia Front in their day. How do you know how those terms sound in most modern contexts. Given, I admit, that gentlemen of the 18th Century thought nothing of making such statements, given the views prevalent at that time, they do sound a bit different in today's environment, however.

You might want to tell that to the left wing authors over at the Washington Post who are now openly saying democracy is the problem. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/11/10/the-problem-with-our-government-is-democracy/

 

Or even at ForeignPolicy https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/ .

 

I've been pretty down on democracy, as @vcczar will attest too. Any system which produces these two as nominees is probably not the best thing since sliced bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VanMav said:

You might want to tell that to the left wing authors over at the Washington Post who are now openly saying democracy is the problem. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/11/10/the-problem-with-our-government-is-democracy/

 

Or even at ForeignPolicy https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/10/the-dance-of-the-dunces-trump-clinton-election-republican-democrat/ .

 

I've been pretty down on democracy, as @vcczar will attest too. Any system which produces these two as nominees is probably not the best thing since sliced bread.

Also, keep in mind, the unofficially de facto enforced two-party system leads to elections with crappy candidates for both parties "with a chance of winning" (the quoted statement and the firm belief of the majority of the electorate that only two can actually hold that status as firmly as if it were a law of physics or act of God) and the resulting limit in REAL and PRODUCTIVE political dialogue outside strict scripts, buzzwords, and with solid "in-the-box" thinking. This is an even greater, more fundamental, and broader issue, and, is a bigger elephant in the room that no one with any power or influence really wants to address or tackle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Patine said:

Also, keep in mind, the unofficially de facto enforced two-party system leads to elections with crappy candidates for both parties "with a chance of winning" (the quoted statement and the firm belief of the majority of the electorate that only two can actually hold that status as firmly as if it were a law of physics or act of God) and the resulting limit in REAL and PRODUCTIVE political dialogue outside strict scripts, buzzwords, and with solid "in-the-box" thinking. This is an even greater, more fundamental, and broader issue, and, is a bigger elephant in the room that no one with any power or influence really wants to address or tackle.

I don't think the two party system does that. It was never the case before, why is it suddenly so now? Dwight D. Eisenhower was courted seriously by both parties. Liberal Republicans existed, conservative blue dog democrats existed. The problem is tribalism and the growing need to virtue-signal your purity. I think social media and the mainstream media have a lot of blame to take on. If you're not pure enough you don't belong in our party, type stuff. Both the left and the right do it, only the right are apparently having a "civil war", though. And I don't think going forward you're going to have Glenn Beck and others join the Democratic Party, or liberal anti-Clinton democrats join the Republican party. And that's the fundamental problem. There is no broad tent anymore, not in any real sense. Candidates aren't regional, primary voters demand purity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that there are no good 3rd parties.  The green Party makes Bernie look moderate and the Libertarians nominated a candidate that isn't a Libertarian and was yet another bad nominee.  McMullin has a good showing in Utah, but he was not a national candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Patine said:

"Protecting from the tyranny of the majority" sounds like the wording of a constitutional term that would be used by groups like the National Party of South Africa or the Rhodesia Front in their day. How do you know how those terms sound in most modern contexts. Given, I admit, that gentlemen of the 18th Century thought nothing of making such statements, given the views prevalent at that time, they do sound a bit different in today's environment, however.

Well, that was how the system was set up.  There are many foreigners who do not understand America's system, and I get that.  It can be confusing at times.  But, you have to read into the Founder's motives through things like the Federalist Papers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

Well, that was how the system was set up.  There are many foreigners who do not understand America's system, and I get that.  It can be confusing at times.  But, you have to read into the Founder's motives through things like the Federalist Papers.

But what I'm saying is the issues and values that were predominant in the late 18th Century no longer are fully timely, relevant, or applicable today, and no longer represent or serve the best interests of the US, or any civilized, advanced nation today, and are in sore and dire need of re-evaluation and revision and not just carried forward blindly as is simply because, "the Founding Fathers said so and they had reasons relevant in their day," as reasons alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Patine said:

But what I'm saying is the issues and values that were predominant in the late 18th Century no longer are fully timely, relevant, or applicable today, and no longer represent or serve the best interests of the US, or any civilized, advanced nation today, and are in sore and dire need of re-evaluation and revision and not just carried forward blindly as is simply because, "the Founding Fathers said so and they had reasons relevant in their day," as reasons alone.

They are not in need of revision.  It still prevents states like California, New York, Illinois, and Texas from just steam rolling states like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alaska, and Delaware.  Pure democracy is very dangerous because it leads to tyranny.  That protection is needed, and I would argue that it is more important today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

They are not in need of revision.  It still prevents states like California, New York, Illinois, and Texas from just steam rolling states like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alaska, and Delaware.  Pure democracy is very dangerous because it leads to tyranny.  That protection is needed, and I would argue that it is more important today.

So, the tyranny of the opinions of dead men of over two centuries ago who had no idea what the modern world would look like is a far better tyranny to preserve?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

So, the tyranny of the opinions of dead men of over two centuries ago who had no idea what the modern world would look like is a far better tyranny to preserve?

Using this logic, we should just totally disregard anything that people of history do, write, say, enact into law, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Using this logic, we should just totally disregard anything that people of history do, write, say, enact into law, etc.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that just because someone greatly respected and wise in affairs in their day and with a pedigree of respect into the modern day said something or made a law in their day that shouldn't mean that law or decision should be considered automatically infallible and beyond reproach and possible revision into perpetuity. That's what I'm saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Patine said:

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that just because someone greatly respected and wise in affairs in their day and with a pedigree of respect into the modern day said something or made a law in their day that shouldn't mean that law or decision should be considered automatically infallible and beyond reproach and possible revision into perpetuity. That's what I'm saying.

Except, this election is  great example of why the system was set up in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Except, this election is  great example of why the system was set up in the first place.

Why? Because it stopped a politician you didn't like but who got the majority of popular vote (if only barely) from defeating one you'd prefer, but when both are utterly despicable, unethical liars and likely not trustworthy with the office? I'm not sure I see your logic here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will make the same comment on this, as I have on other threads that want the electoral college:

Let us really take a look at this popular vote, electoral college thing. If we went full blown popular vote, which would mean abolishing the electoral college, then California would dictate who becomes president. The EC is designed to keep states with outrageous population, from deciding the president. I would rather have all states have a say, vs. a few high population states deciding everything. 

And let me tell you, no one that I know of wants California and Liberal states determining the president. So, I think the men 200 years ago foreseen these problems, and I think they are absolutely right.

Even if the high populations states were heavily Republican, I would not be for abolishing the electoral college. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dallas said:

I will make the same comment on this, as I have on other threads that want the electoral college:

Let us really take a look at this popular vote, electoral college thing. If we went full blown popular vote, which would mean abolishing the electoral college, then California would dictate who becomes president. The EC is designed to keep states with outrageous population, from deciding the president. I would rather have all states have a say, vs. a few high population states deciding everything.

And let me tell you, no one that I know of wants California and Liberal states determining the president. So, I think the men 200 years ago foreseen these problems, and I think they are absolutely right.

Even if the high populations states were heavily Republican, I would not be for abolishing the electoral college.

Of course, also consider two other big factors for the decision in 1787 that are often overlooked or ignored - first, amongst those "low pop" states was, at the time, the preservation of the federal power of slave states, whose FREE VOTING populations were much lower than the Northern states. Second, Alexander Hamilton's elitist and pompous view that only "qualified" people should be elected, and the common man was not fully qualified to choose a leader; a condition which has failed in it's purpose in 2016. And California does not have over 50% of the US population, nor does the state vote as a single unanimous bloc in popular vote. And, a political electoral system designed to lock out or handicap specifically one party or ideology "no one that I know of wants California and Liberal states determining the president" is on par with the obviously rigged electoral systems in many Third World Countries. I think both parties would be well served if they both had to evolve their platforms to attempt to appeal to wider electorates and not cling to one of the most destructive, devisive, and counter-productive political, social, and economic trends of recent years - political ideological purity uber al...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patine said:

So, the tyranny of the opinions of dead men of over two centuries ago who had no idea what the modern world would look like is a far better tyranny to preserve?

As I've said before, the genius of the Fathers is that they anticipated that new ideas and issues WOULD come up, which is why they gave us the ability to amend the constitution.  How is this tyranny?  If you don't like the laws then propose amendments.  Many people who hold your opinion would be the first people to cry foul if their freedom of speech were revoked somehow.  They just want to follow the laws that are convenient for them and ignore the ones that are "outdated.

Let me put this one more way.  Suppose someone built a house in 1787.  It would have been primitive by modern standards.  Over the years, new technology emerged and "times changed.  The owning family would eventually install stoves, plumbing, electricity, phone service, air conditioning and Internet.  So we can make changes to keep up with the times.  The house itself may be remodeled, expanded, but the underlying framework and foundation doesn't change.  The Constitution is the foundation.  Yes in some sense it is a living document.  There is little or nothing we can't do legally within its bounds to change it as the times demand, but as it exists at any given time it must be followed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@servo75 @jvikings1 @Patine @VanMav

People need to stop using the Founding Fathers to argue about 2016 politics. In the two instances that these intellectual and economic elites met in Philadelphia, they did not once discuss how their ideas would hold up through 2016. They were talking about their present situation. In 1776, they needed to bond to face an eminent threat of their former mother country. In 1787, they were forging a Constitution to bind the country together to better facilitate the national government and defense of their time--1787. As is well known, they didn't expect the Constitution to last, and that didn't bother them. Jefferson expected and desired a new constitution every generation, "a young man shouldn't wear an old man's coat" (paraphrasing there). On another note, Hamilton hoped the Electoral College would vote independently to block the popular vote if someone unfit was elected, which could make December 19 interesting if a major Trump scandal hits before then. 

Now lets talk about the electoral college, which was devised before we had a popular vote for the presidency, and which purposely inflated the slave states, so that they'd remain in the Union. In 2016, we do not have slavery, we do have the popular vote, and we aren't at risk of losing Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, etc., if we removed the electoral college. So let's answer this together with the following questions. 

1. Anti-Trump voters wish to remove the electoral college. If Trump had won the popular vote and lost the election, would pro-Trump supporters wish to remove the electoral college? Would Clinton supporters wish to keep it? If this is the case, then the outcry is mostly emotional, and nothing should be done. 

2. Thinking only about the 21st century? What benefit does the Electoral College have for the electorate in the 21st century? I can't answer this question, but maybe someone else can. 

3. Thinking only about the 21st century? What drawbacks does the Electoral College have for the electorate in the 21st century? In the five elections I've been able to vote in, I've seen two elections go to the less preferred candidate. That's 40%!!!!!! The EC inflates the voting power of places like Wyoming, which means someone from that state's vote is not equal to a voter in California, even though that state has more popular votes. The argument is that the without the EC, candidates would fail to visit places like Iowa, but that's not correct. We still have the primaries, and candidates still need every vote they can get. 

For myself, I've been opposed to the electoral college since 2000, when I was barely able to vote. If Trump had won the popular vote and lost the election, I'd selfishly be glad Clinton won the election, but I'd still publicly admit that the EC should be removed, since I'd believe Trump should have won that election. I do not believe he should have won this election. When all the votes are finally counted, Hillary Clinton is expected to have won one million to two million more votes than Trump, which is a great numerical lead than victors have had in at least 20 historical elections. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, folks, if we didn't have the electoral college, President Infinity would be a lot less fun and interesting...

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, I just want to see the electoral college in place. It is much harder to rig the election, and based on the widespread voter fraud (machines, voter intimidation on behalf of the Democrats) we do not want the election rigged. Hopefully this emotion (I agree with Vcczar's #1) will calm down. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and give Trump a chance, as we survived and went through 8 years of President Obama.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dallas said:

In the end, I just want to see the electoral college in place. It is much harder to rig the election, and based on the widespread voter fraud (machines, voter intimidation on behalf of the Democrats) we do not want the election rigged. Hopefully this emotion (I agree with Vcczar's #1) will calm down. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and give Trump a chance, as we survived and went through 8 years of President Obama.

Just want to clarify a statement there - voter intimidation on behalf of the DEMOCRATS. Are you saying there was no voter intimidation or attempt of it by the Republicans? I don't know about you, but Trump's supporters (at least a goodly number of them; I don't like to speak in absolutes regarding demographics like many seem to these days) seemed pretty damned militant and threatening to me in their rhetoric, statements, and outright threats (let's call a spade a spade). In fact, they seemed the rowdiest, most menacing, militant, and threatening voting bloc in the US since the Southern Democrats when the Jim Crow Laws were starting to die.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

Just want to clarify a statement there - voter intimidation on behalf of the DEMOCRATS. Are you saying there was no voter intimidation or attempt of it by the Republicans? I don't know about you, but Trump's supporters (at least a goodly number of them; I don't like to speak in absolutes regarding demographics like many seem to these days) seemed pretty damned militant and threatening to me in their rhetoric, statements, and outright threats (let's call a spade a spade). In fact, they seemed the rowdiest, most menacing, militant, and threatening voting bloc in the US since the Southern Democrats when the Jim Crow Laws were starting to die.

Not all Democrats, but Hillary supporters specifically, have called for the rape of Melania Trump. A male Hillary supporter in Florida, physically abused a female Trump supporter. Grabbing here by the neck then proceeding to throw her down to the ground. At multiple Sarah Palin grassroots rallies, Hillary supporters interrupted, beginning to shout and was eventually escorted out by the owner. Those very same people would still beat on the windows from the outside, calling Sarah Palin's name. Hillary supporters called "Diamond and Silk", two female African-American supporters, "coons" and any other African-American supporting Trump. Not to mention all of the physical abuse towards Trump supporters, at the rallies.  

We are now, also seeing the Left begin paying people to protest Trump, and to physically attack any Trump supporter within sight. These things, I believe, were never carried out by Trump supporters. And it voter intimidation as it's worst. I am missing many more instances of these acts. Another case, a 70-80 year old woman was physically abused, simply for attending a Trump rally. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dallas said:

Not all Democrats, but Hillary supporters specifically, have called for the rape of Melania Trump. A male Hillary supporter in Florida, physically abused a female Trump supporter. Grabbing here by the neck then proceeding to throw her down to the ground. At multiple Sarah Palin grassroots rallies, Hillary supporters interrupted, beginning to shout and was eventually escorted out by the owner. Those very same people would still beat on the windows from the outside, calling Sarah Palin's name. Hillary supporters called "Diamond and Silk", two female African-American supporters, "coons" and any other African-American supporting Trump. Not to mention all of the physical abuse towards Trump supporters, at the rallies.  

We are now, also seeing the Left begin paying people to protest Trump, and to physically attack any Trump supporter within sight. These things, I believe, were never carried out by Trump supporters.

As much as I keep up with political goings on, I have NEVER heard ANY of these things that you mention. I'm not calling you a liar, but they must be so rare as to not warrant any attention. They must be very isolated instances. I have heard a few accounts of Trump supporters saying they'll "take Clinton out" if she wins, but I know this is also a minority and isolated instances. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dallas said:

Not all Democrats, but Hillary supporters specifically, have called for the rape of Melania Trump. A male Hillary supporter in Florida, physically abused a female Trump supporter. Grabbing here by the neck then proceeding to throw her down to the ground. At multiple Sarah Palin grassroots rallies, Hillary supporters interrupted, beginning to shout and was eventually escorted out by the owner. Those very same people would still beat on the windows from the outside, calling Sarah Palin's name. Hillary supporters called "Diamond and Silk", two female African-American supporters, "coons" and any other African-American supporting Trump. Not to mention all of the physical abuse towards Trump supporters, at the rallies.

I think basically, what is comes down to, is that, if you look at it in a broad sense, such behaviour was not limited by party. Anyone would be dishonest or uninformed to say it was. Both sides had very violent, rowdy, menacing, threatening, and offensive supporters who lacked appropriate restraint, decency, and sense of law and order this election. It was a very emotional and divisive election. My statement above was asking if you were saying such behaviour was limited to Democratic supporters. I certainly don't think it was at all. Are you willing to admit that it was unacceptably inappropriate, threatening, and disorderly conduct by individuals and groups on BOTH sides in significant numbers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of backing up with the information I provided, here are several instances: 

And as many articles as I come across, I must not have shared the others. Not the best sources for anyone not found...but they do contain the various cases of abuse. I am also apart of a Donald Trump group, almost 200,000 members, and I am always seeing stories and picture of car windows being bashed, and much more. Now, I have not seen anyone for Trump, commit these actions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...