Jump to content

Condolences, USA.


Christian Spaeth

Recommended Posts

BTW, the electoral college was instituted to protect the many states with smaller populations from getting reamed by the few states with large populations.  Brilliant move by the Founding Fathers.  This country was set up so that the individual states would hold the majority of the power while the need for unity of all the States was necessary to stand up to the world and protect it's combined citizenship.  This concept seems to have been lost lately.  The Founding Fathers were smart M...f'ers!  Make America Great Again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 minutes ago, Constantin said:


I even agree with most of that. And I can understand the sentiment of these people. I also agree that Hillary probably would have been a bad choice. She wouldn't have been a bad president, probably, but she wouldn't have really changed much. And there really are too many dubious things going on around her.
I also believe that it were the Republicans made the biggest mistake, by not getting rid of Trump when they had the chance. There are many great Republican potential candidates, anyone of which would have had an easy victory against Hillary.

And yes, I am worried. And I am not a US citizen.

Electing Trump probably staved off WW3.  Hillary has a hard on for Russia and would have provoked Putin, forcing him to flex his muscle. The obama administration has no problem starting wars. Look at Lybia and what a shit show that turned out to be. The middle east is a dirty diaper because of the meddling of the western world.  Our only interest in it should be the safety of Israel.  We have enough oil in the continental United States to break ties with all those dysfunctional countries.  The Obama administration handcuffed the U.S. by blocking oil production here and so we were forced to be involved in oil interests over seas (that's a simplistic view of it but it gets the point across). Don't get me wrong, I am all for oil. So far it is the only power source that can consistently get shit done. Without oil we would be living like people did in the 1850's - not to mention that 1/2 the world would be starving without it.  

The people wanted things to change, someone that was not part of the corrupt system.  That is what they voted for.  We will have to wait to see if that is what we got. A vote for hillary was a vote for the status quo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mirror said:

BTW, the electoral college was instituted to protect the many states with smaller populations from getting reamed by the few states with large populations.  Brilliant move by the Founding Fathers.  This country was set up so that the individual states would hold the majority of the power while the need for unity of all the States was necessary to stand up to the world and protect it's combined citizenship.  This concept seems to have been lost lately.  The Founding Fathers were smart M...f'ers!  Make America Great Again!

Really? The system ensured that rural areas were counted in times where individual voting was nearly impossible. That is no longer the case. Individual votes can easily be counted, and should be counted. It's not just fair in the scheme of the presidential election, but it would engage the public more in the other elections. It's the idea that "my vote doesn't count" that tends to keep so many people at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RPSharman said:

Really? The system ensured that rural areas were counted in times where individual voting was nearly impossible. That is no longer the case. Individual votes can easily be counted, and should be counted. It's not just fair in the scheme of the presidential election, but it would engage the public more in the other elections. It's the idea that "my vote doesn't count" that tends to keep so many people at home.

There were actually a few reasons why the electoral system was put in place.

1) The Founding Fathers believed that the general population couldn't be trusted to elect a qualified candidate and that a tyrant could manipulate popular opinion and come into power. The electoral college was to be a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. This college were to be comprised of learned men and were only to meet once. The idea was that this would cut down on the chances of being able to be corrupted by others and each other.

2) When the country was forming the smaller states were leery of more populous states.  If all things were equal then the more populous states would always win and the smaller states would have zero say in anything.  The smaller states would be powerless. Why would the smaller states join a union if they gave up all their power? Thus a representative system was a compromise to give smaller states some power.  Under this system each state has the same number of electoral votes as they do representatives in Congress, thus no state has less then 3.  This gives the smaller states a little bit of an advantage.  The article I'll quote uses this example.  Wyoming has 210,000 votes, thus each elector represents 70,000 voters. That's 3 electoral votes total.  In California, 9,700,000 votes cast with 54 electoral votes.  This breaks down to each electorate representing 179,000 votes. 

This is a good article that helps explain it.

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were actually a few reasons why the electoral system was put in place.
1) The Founding Fathers believed that the general population couldn't be trusted to elect a qualified candidate and that a tyrant could manipulate popular opinion and come into power. The electoral college was to be a buffer between the population and the selection of a President.

So what's everyone worried about? Trump will not be president. The system works. ...
If it does work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Constantin said:


So what's everyone worried about? Trump will not be president. The system works. ...
If it does work.

It's all subjective.  I think that hillary is a  manipulative, dishonest, two-faced, sociopath that starts wars and should be rotting in jail.

On the other hand, Trump said Mexican and grab 'em by the pussy.

I'll take the one that doesn't kill people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2016 at 7:32 AM, Constantin said:


Yet. If he puts his words into action he'll kill a lot of people

Is it possible to be any kind of POTUS and not make decisions which will kill people? Its a big place, with lots of heavily armed people who expect to be able to consume lots of stuff. Management of the supply pipes' inputs and outputs are 'tricky'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to be any kind of POTUS and not make decisions which will kill people? Its a big place, with lots of heavily armed people who expect to be able to consume lots of stuff. Management of the supply pipes' inputs and outputs is 'tricky'.

Of course, it's probably unavoidable. Vit you can at least try. However, Trump just seemed to be making haphazard comments, without referring to any specific situation. It'd be different if he had said something like: "I really want to end the war in Syria, and yes, that's going to mean a lot of more dead people."
He just made blanket statements, that's different.
And by turning NATO into a pay-for-action service, he will indirectly be responsible for more dead people, when he will allow his buddy Putin to annex neighbouring countries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Constantin said:


Of course, it's probably unavoidable. Vit you can at least try. However, Trump just seemed to be making haphazard comments, without referring to any specific situation. It'd be different if he had said something like: "I really want to end the war in Syria, and yes, that's going to mean a lot of more dead people."
He just made blanket statements, that's different.
And by turning NATO into a pay-for-action service, he will indirectly be responsible for more dead people, when he will allow his buddy Putin to annex neighbouring countries.

Very little of what he actually said in the election bares up to scrutiny and much of it is contradictory. He was 'playing to the gallery' who really wanted to hear that stuff from a celebrity they could call an outsider - which in it's self is ridiculous when you consider his wealth and where it came from.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very little of what he actually said in the election bares up to scrutiny and much of it is contradictory. He was 'playing to the gallery' who really wanted to hear that stuff from a celebrity they could call an outsider - which in it's self is ridiculous when you consider his wealth and where it came from.
 

Yes, of course, I hope you're right, but we won't know that until we know it. What he said during the campaign is all we have. Some of the things he's saying now are somewhat encouraging, but then he goes off to hire all these racists, lobbyists...

Anyway, this discussion is somewhat moot. We'll just have to wait and see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2016 at 7:37 AM, daniel said:

France is nice but if you're moving to escape populist right wing politics....

Still better than the US.

I have covered and interviewed both Trump and JM LePen and I'd rather have LePen as President than Trump. LePen Pere would be a middle-of-the-road Republican if he were in the US and probably couldn't even get nominated in many states as he'd be considered too liberal. His daughter Marine even more so.

I like the French electoral system. Less then three months from start to swearing in the new President. The only ads on TV and radio are free ones and every candidate gets the same time. Debates are real debates, not some idiotic Town Hall thing. It's all publicly financed and costs around $350million for the whole thing.

And people show up to the rallies/speeches of people that they don't necessarily support in order to listen to the candidates 60-90 minute speech and hear what their platforms are. On election day (a Sunday) every voter in France is thanked by a local official (usually the mayor or deputy mayor) as they cast their ballot.  It could be why the French have a voter turnout north of 80 percent.

Refreshing as hell.

5 hours ago, Dejan Ceko said:

It does not matter who is president of the USA...anyway

Tell that to anyone whose life has been effected by a Supreme Court decision.

(That would be everyone in the United States.)

16 hours ago, Mirror said:

There were actually a few reasons why the electoral system was put in place.

1) The Founding Fathers believed that the general population couldn't be trusted to elect a qualified candidate and that a tyrant could manipulate popular opinion and come into power. The electoral college was to be a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. This college were to be comprised of learned men and were only to meet once. The idea was that this would cut down on the chances of being able to be corrupted by others and each other.

The Electoral Collage, and the US Senate, were designed to insure that wealthy white voters, particularly those in rural areas, could maintain control of the country. It is actually illegal for any other legislative body in the United States to be constituted as the US Senate is as it's considered discriminatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Constantin said:


Yes, of course, I hope you're right, but we won't know that until we know it. What he said during the campaign is all we have. Some of the things he's saying now are somewhat encouraging, but then he goes off to hire all these racists, lobbyists...

Anyway, this discussion is somewhat moot. We'll just have to wait and see.

Do you even know what the word racist means?  George Wallace, Robert Byrd, those guys are racist. Look them up, you'll see what I mean. Did you know that hillary said that Robert Byrd was her Menter?  

Someone that says SOME Mexicans that illegally sneak into a country are rapists and murders (which by the way, is fact) is not a racist.  Someone that says you need to stop importation of immigrants from ISIS infected countries until they can be properly vetted is not a racist. Someone that says grab 'em by the pussy is not a sexist - an egotistical horndog perhaps, but not a sexist. Honestly tell me, man or woman, that you haven't uttered words to that effect about the opposite sex at one time or another.  Too many people are triggered (what a bs word, btw) by a word and stop listening to the whole message.

NATO?  You don't think that countries should shoulder the burden of the cost of such an expensive program? Particularly countries that can afford it? Do you go to dinner with friends and never pitch in on the bill? How does that make you feel when you are constantly picking up the bill for friends that you know can afford to pay? This country is 16 trillion dollars in debt.  Free rides are coming to an end.

BTW, shouldn't you be worried about all the problems in your own country? I hear you have plenty.  But I won't try to pretend I know how to fix them because I don't live there and all.  

I say all these things in a kind voice, although they may seem mean when you read them. I am a direct man and I know my written words come off harshly. If you were to hear me say them in person, my tone softens the effect quite a bit. I hope you don't hold the harshness of my written words against me.  They are not written to offend but to get my point across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even know what the word racist means?  George Wallace, Robert Byrd, those guys are racist. Look them up, you'll see what I mean. Did you know that hillary said that Robert Byrd was her Menter?  
Someone that says SOME Mexicans that illegally sneak into a country are rapists and murders (which by the way, is fact) is not a racist.  Someone that says you need to stop importation of immigrants from ISIS infected countries until they can be properly vetted is not a racist. Someone that says grab 'em by the pussy is not a rapist - an egotistical horndog perhaps, but not a rapist. Honestly tell me, man or woman, that you haven't uttered words to that effect about the opposite sex at one time or another.  Too many people are triggered (what a bs word, btw) by a word and stop listening to the whole message.
NATO?  You don't think that countries should shoulder the burden of the cost of such an expensive program? Particularly countries that can afford it? Do you go to dinner with friends and never pitch in on the bill? How does that make you feel when you are constantly picking up the bill for friends that you know can afford to pay? This country is 16 trillion dollars in debt.  Free rides are coming to an end.
BTW, shouldn't you be worried about all the problems in your own country? I hear you have plenty.  But I won't try to pretend I know how to fix them because I don't live there and all.  

Let me clarify a couple of things:

- For me, it's not about Trump v Hillary, it's about not Trump
- You seriously ask a German guy if he knows what a racist is? (No, that doesn't mean we're all racists, but we've had a few problems with some)
- I am not pretending to suggest how to fix a country's problems, not here, not in the US.
What gave you the impression? I do however have an opinion of what will likely be the wrong way.
I hope you didn't watch that video, and believed it all, where supposedly Germany was basically taken over by ISIS. They even had islamic symbols on the Cologne cathedral. I live in Cologne and it's not true. Of course we have problems here, and if our elections and the politicians elected had any influence over the course of... the entire world, I would accept that other people/countries take a sharp interest in the outcome. And possibly worry about it.

NATO is not a "program". It's an alliance of countries that ensured that the Cold War didn't turn hot and that later Russia and others didn't go around invading countries.
It's not a service offered by the US for free to other countries, there already are no free rides. Yes, there are countries that can do more - and they should - but most are contributing based on their abilities.
The US could possibly go it alone, but would greatly suffer, too, of a destabilized world.

Anyway, I am sure this thread has gone on longer than Jeff would like, and I am bowing out of this conversation now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...