2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

Election season: "Trump is a noninterventionist! No more wars!"

Trump wins: "We HAVE to invade Korea!"

God listen to yourselves. Dissonant foolishness.

Where did he say he would invade North Korea?

aloyisious

Amerika wrote: »

No it's not. The Founding Fathers knew the US Constitution wasn’t a perfect document. So in order to meet the changing needs of a nation that would profoundly become different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived, were smart enough to allow for amendments to the US Constitution. And that it was something that would need the approval of the majority of representative of the people to accomplish, not just a handful of political appointed judges sitting on the high court making decision based on how they feel rather than interpreting the law before them.

It seems your position is that the SC should not make any decisions on what the Constitution, and sections within it, means within the ever-moving parlance and understanding of the US citizenry, if citizens take an argument to the SC on what the constitution means asking the SC to give an answer.

Would you propose an amendment to the constitution sections referring to the SC, deleting or amnding sections of it to stop the SC making decisions as requested by citizens?

How would you go about selecting members of the USSC, if politicians were to be disbarred from selecting persons to sit on the USSC?

ancapailldorcha

Let's stop with the one liners and pics please.

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

Regarding the backing of high profile neocons...

Where did that graphic come from? It's inaccurate and heavily weighted with one ethnic minority.

Overheal

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You did.



:D

This. During the election is supporters claimed he was some vehemently anti war messiah now I'm hearing "well maybe it IS time to get involved in a sixth war"

RobertKK

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You did.



:D

I did not say intervene militarily.

Intervene as in get China to really do something to put a stop to this crazy Kim Jong Un guy in Pyongyang. I really don't think they offer a lot to China, as there has to be a better way for China to have a barrier between themselves and US supported South Korea, than a country that is becoming increasingly dangerous.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

I did not say intervene militarily.

Intervene as in get China to really do something to put a stop to this crazy Kim Jong Un guy in Pyongyang. I really don't think they offer a lot to China, as there has to be a better way for China to have a barrier between themselves and US supported South Korea, than a country that is becoming increasingly dangerous.

Really do something like what?

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

This. During the election is supporters claimed he was some vehemently anti war messiah now I'm hearing "well maybe it IS time to get involved in a sixth war"

It is not my problem if you or others choose to see things that were not posted.
I never said have a war with North Korea, one can intervene and it not be militarily.
When the US intervened in this island, it was via a peace process, they did not invade.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not my problem if you or others choose to see things that were not posted.
I never said have a war with North Korea, one can intervene and it not be militarily.
When the US intervened in this island, it was via a peace process, they did not invade.

With two factions with a much different outlook on the US as a country instrumental to NATO and many other factors. By contrast how the DPRK views America is well documented..

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

Really do something like what?

The world, not just the US needs China to stop the craziness in North Korea which the UN compared the atrocities as being Nazi like.
China is the only country with any sort of influence, and it is China that is keeping the failed state of North Korea propped up, a country that has regular famines and people who are hungry as they waste money on their vast military of over 1 million people and on their nuclear weapons.

The US can't trust Kim Jong Un not to fire nuclear weapons at the US when they finally master the technology.
China and the other main actors in this need to sit down and discuss what is to be done with North Korea. The crimes against humanity in North Korea needs to be ended at some stage.
War is not an option, it needs to be via other means.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

The world, not just the US needs China to stop the craziness in North Korea which the UN compared the atrocities as being Nazi like.
China is the only country with any sort of influence, and it is China that is keeping the failed state of North Korea propped up, a country that has regular famines and people who are hungry as they waste money on their vast military of over 1 million people and on their nuclear weapons.

The US can't trust Kim Jong Un not to fire nuclear weapons at the US when they finally master the technology.
China and the other main actors in this need to sit down and discuss what is to be done with North Korea. The crimes against humanity in North Korea needs to be ended at some stage.
War is not an option, it needs to be via other means.

As far as missiles go we already know the US has superior anti ballistics - operation Burnt Frost. I wouldn't be concerned about them trying to launch a missile, the interception and counter strike would be swift and lethal.

Without specifics on how intervention would occur politically in DPRK it's all just stale air at this point.

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

With two factions with a much different outlook on the US as a country instrumental to NATO and many other factors. By contrast how the DPRK views America is well documented..

If China cut off links, it could just end up like the fall of the Berlin wall, which for me as a 13 year old was probably the most special day in my life.
Such a special time to be alive.
The world needs this to happen to the North Koreans, but China wants their barrier to US backed South Korea.
I don't think it will be solved soon, but the growing threat of North Korea is going to be a major problem for Trump and the world.

4068ac1elhodqr

During a campaign appearance in Atlanta he said he'd sit down and have a burger with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Maybe after a couple of bags of fries later, they'll arrive at a win-win deal. Without dialogue, there is no hope.

Overheal

Finnley Quaint Wineglass wrote: »

During a campaign appearance in Atlanta he said he'd sit down and have a burger with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Maybe after a couple of bags of fries later, they'll arrive at a win-win deal. Without dialogue, there is no hope.

That's great. What's ironic about that is if Obama had said the same thing he would have been labeled a weakling/communist/antichrist/etc

Overheal

Russia says "psyche! We were talking to the trump camp the whole time"

Moscow had contacts with Trump team during campaign, Russian diplomat says - The Washington Post
https://apple.news/AQI7xbi7tSF-JsoICuc6Kew

4068ac1elhodqr

Overheal wrote: »

That's great. What's ironic about that is if Obama had said the same thing he would have been labeled a weakling/communist/antichrist/etc

But Barry didn't write (or co-write) 'The Art of the Deal'.

Letting media opinion - influence strategy or re-direct objectives probably isn't something that will phase the new President.

aloyisious

daithi7 wrote: »

Yes, that's undoubtedly true, but to be fair to the Trumpites, he won the election fair and square, by the rules of the contest.

Also as a side point, whilst Hillary may have marginally won the overall popular vote, this however does not reflect the federal nature of the USA. Also, Republicans in particular, would say that land mass and land owners, should carry a higher weighting vote per person. (i.e. more electoral votes per person in less populous states)
Now you can say that is daft in one way, but it tallies with their beliefs and it is a very valid argument IMHO.
(& I am certainly not a republican)

Should I take it from your belief that it is a very valid argument, that Joe citizen land-owner of a large ranch should have a higher weighting vote than Joe citizen ranch-hand employee at the ranch?

That would mean changing the whole of the basis of constitutional voting rights - one man, one vote on the basis of equality.

There's also the Electoral College system when it comes to congressmen, as each state gets them allotted on the basis of population numbers, the greater the population = more congressmen. Each state has 2 senators, regardless of population, so that goes to the good of lesser populated states. A state with 2 Sens & 53 congressmen (California) has 55 electoral votes.

Mindful that that system worked for the Republicans this year I can't see them rushing to change it any time soon, despite anyone thinking that it's what republicans might prefer. Don also might not be happy with any tinkering, as it might end up with a bigger Washington set & draw on the taxpayer and probable opposition to his plans.

I won't go extrapolating further from your suggestion about the voting rights argument which usually ensues if one talks about property rights having a relativity to any person's voting rights.

First Up

BoJack Horseman wrote:

I thought the Donald was

He's not short of confidence but we'll see what he says after he gets the intelligence briefings.
Mind you I think I saw somewhere that he thinks opening casinos might solve the islamist problem so we are starting from a good way back.

First Up

BoJack Horseman wrote:

I thought the Donald was

He's not short of confidence but we'll see what he says after he gets the intelligence briefings.
Mind you I think I saw somewhere that he thinks opening casinos might solve the islamist problem so we are starting from a good way back.

alastair

daithi7 wrote: »

With all due respect that's a real splitting hairs attitude to the outcome of this election. The election was won fair and square by the laws of the land.

p.s. as an aside, other presidents have also won the election before while not getting the majority of the overall popular vote (e.g. Bush v Gore, Kennedy v Nixon) . So this anomaly of the US electoral college system is well known and has precedent.

I wasn't disputing the outcomes of the election. Trump won fair and square. But that doesn't mean he's been mandated by the nation - because he hasn't.

26000 Elephants

RobertKK wrote: »

North Korea could be a huge issue as well.

The US will have to intervene,

Indeed they should. Censorship in North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is the most extreme among the world, with the government able to take strict control over communications. The country is routinely ranked at the bottom of the World Press Freedom Index Rankings published annually by Reporters Without Borders.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Russia says "psyche! We were talking to the trump camp the whole time"

Moscow had contacts with Trump team during campaign, Russian diplomat says - The Washington Post
https://apple.news/AQI7xbi7tSF-JsoICuc6Kew

That would be pretty disturbing even if Trump hadn't been elected President.

The CIA has been briefing Trump on matters of national intelligence for months, as apparently is normal practice, because it helps the successful candidate hit the ground running. I'm sure the intelligence is carefully selected on a need-to-know basis but it's hard to imagine it didn't involve a big chunk of intelligence on Russia.

Bear in mind the timing too, this was at a time 'someone' was hacking Hillary Clinton's emails.

I'm not suggesting a grand, or even an explicit, conspiracy theory, of course. Nothing in politics is that simple.

Fleawuss

RobertKK wrote: »

They seemed to get on well.
It was suppose to be a meeting for 10-15 minutes, went on for near 90 minutes.
Trump called Obama a "very good man".

Both had been insulting eachother, and now they are getting on better than expected, Obama called the meeting 'excellent', and Trump said he had 'great respect' for Obama.
Looks like a lot of wounds were worked on as they shook hands.

Obama is discharging his responsibilities to the Republic by pretending that the country isn't bitterly divided and he's giving Trump the gift all outgoing Presidents do to their successor: non interference.

Trump will show his respect for Obama by demolishing his legacy in jig time. No wounds were worked on: for the sake of the children i.e. the viewers of a nervous disposition, they pretended.

The RTE reporter spotted something:Trump looked "spooked" she said. The Orange buffoon has begun to realize the dimensions of the job. I'm going to make a prediction: if he doesn't step down before the inauguration he will resign before his term is up. I may be totally wrong but I think he might realize he really isn't up to the job.

K-9

Amazingfun wrote: »

"banning all Muslims"

He never said that. So why bother even answering you?

I am more concerned with the rotten Irish media and various government actors who continue to insult and smear Trump, even after his election. You should be too.

That policy is now gone from his website so I suppose we'll never know what his policy was, very 1984!

Jawgap

Team Trump Struggling to Fill National-Security Jobs

Team Trump is struggling to fill numerous key slots or even attract many candidates because hundreds have either sworn they’d never work in a Trump administration or have directly turned down requests to join, multiple current and former U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the transition efforts told The Daily Beast.

Team Trump didn’t expect to win until the campaign’s internal polling a month before the election signaled a possible victory. That’s when senior Trump officials went into overdrive, trying to build a bench of experienced national security candidates with top secret clearances willing to work for a Trump presidency—and they met resistance across the landscape of experienced GOP national security professionals.

......and the reason why......

One person who met last month with Trump’s national security and homeland security transition team leader said that she confessed that many candidates had flatly rejected attempts to recruit them, believing that Trump was unfit to hold the office of commander in chief.

Amerika

Anyone know what's up with Paddy Power? They paid out on a Clinton win early. How much did they lose and can they get any of it back?

20Cent

Trump yet to announce his cabinet but reports so far are Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie looking at top jobs. A Goldman Sachs man Steven Mnuchin as Treasury secretary.

So much for getting rid of "insiders"/ wall st and draining the swamp.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

That policy is now gone from his website so I suppose we'll never know what his policy was, very 1984!

Went to the earliest date on the Wayback Machine, 8 October, 2016. This it?

https://web.archive.org/web/20161008080652/https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LostinKildare

Why do people keep denying that Trump called for a complete ban of Muslims entering the US? Is it because you realise how shameful (not to mention unConstitutional) that is?

Of course he said it. Stop gaslighting us.

Here's a clip of him quoting his campaign's press release: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

He affirms it over and over: "It's common sense, we have to do it. . . We have no choice. We have no choice. We have no choice."

In fact, watch the whole clip to see how he whips up the Islamophobia. It's chillling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh7XaJlvJIg

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And for days weeks and months thereafter.

Oh look it's back after people caught them scrubbing it.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

TheOven

20Cent wrote: »

Trump yet to announce his cabinet but reports so far are Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie looking at top jobs. A Goldman Sachs man Steven Mnuchin as Treasury secretary.

So much for getting rid of "insiders"/ wall st and draining the swamp.

If he was really anti establishment we would see positions for non republicans. So far he is rewarding their good behavior. Christie might be in trouble with the whole bridgegate thing but Trump said he would take on the best, just turns out the best is really ****.

K-9

Apparently they didn't remove videos of Trump talking about Muslims and immigration.

LostinKildare

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I know . . . I didn't mean you

Manach

I've not fully read all the US constitution nor read a book explicitly on it, but I'd guess (comparing it to the Irish) it enumerates the delegation of powers as well as duty and responsible to citizens and not specifically mention immigration?

26000 Elephants

Manach wrote: »

I've not fully read all the US constitution nor read a book explicitly on it, but I'd guess (comparing it to the Irish) it enumerates the delegation of powers as well as duty and responsible to citizens and not specifically mention immigration?

To enact any law solely on the basis of ones religion is unconstitutional.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nabber

26000 Elephants wrote: »

To enact any law solely on the basis of ones religion is unconstitutional.

The constitution only applies to people within the jurisdiction of the constitution.

BRexit and Trump. I guess people want to be nationalist. Unfortunately if you are nationalist, that makes you xenophobic and racist.

Hong Kong racist against China?
Catalonians anti Spain?

I think America has every right to ban who they like, white, black, yellow, Islamic, Jewish or what ever. Bad for international relations, but totally their choice.

Open Borders don't work. Assimilation doesn't work.

My biggest issue of all, is that the people who fought religion so much in Europe, who wanted all our traditions changed, are now defenders of Islam and it's practices and oppression of women.

Feminist and male feminists arguing that men get 1.1c more than women an hour. While certain parts of the community force women to cover every bit of skin and are not allowed to look at other men for any reason.

You don't have to like everyone. You don't have to accept other people's behaviour in public. You don't have to welcome everyone. Treat your country like your home. Would you let a man throw a table cloth over his wife in your home and tell her not to speak?

To many people try the be warriors of justice. But more than willing to ignore the injustices the people they champion commit.

Nabber

Double post

Amazingfun

Maia Dunphy, "celebrity", is among those trying to block free speech and have Katie Hopkins banned from the Late Late Show. Apparently supporting Trump is just so offensive to her fragile frame.

Yet, Maia married Johnny Vegas, a man himself hounded by the same kind of witch-hunters she now counts herself a member of!

Six ‘pallbearers’ brought the young woman on stage, and he quipped that they should ‘finger’ her as they carried her. And when she started giggling on stage, he jokingly threatened to kick her in the ribs to stop her moving.

But writing under the headline ‘Since when is sexual assault funny?’, O’Hara said: ‘It didn't come across to me as a joke - and near to where I was sitting, no one was laughing. Eventually Vegas crouched down beside the nervous girl and started stroking her breasts while repeatedly saying, “don't ****ing move”. Then he ran his hand up her leg and began pulling her skirt up.

‘What I heard was an audible sharp intake of breath from the audience as they realised that the woman was getting much more than the kiss Vegas had told her to expect.’

http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2008/05/01/6719/did_johnny_vegas_go_too_far%3F


Such hypocrites, these "stars"....

RobertKK

Fleawuss wrote: »

Obama is discharging his responsibilities to the Republic by pretending that the country isn't bitterly divided and he's giving Trump the gift all outgoing Presidents do to their successor: non interference.

Trump will show his respect for Obama by demolishing his legacy in jig time. No wounds were worked on: for the sake of the children i.e. the viewers of a nervous disposition, they pretended.

The RTE reporter spotted something:Trump looked "spooked" she said. The Orange buffoon has begun to realize the dimensions of the job. I'm going to make a prediction: if he doesn't step down before the inauguration he will resign before his term is up. I may be totally wrong but I think he might realize he really isn't up to the job.

CNN made the point that all presidents are initially a bit overwhelmed at he task ahead of them. It is a new job alter all and most people are initially a bit nervous before they settle in.

I remember people here saying Trump would drop out before the election. Trump is not going to quit, maybe he will do 4 years and then say at 74 it is time to retire, or maybe he will run again.
I can't see him quitting.

RobertKK

Amazingfun wrote: »

Maia Dunphy, "celebrity", is among those trying to block free speech and have Katie Hopkins banned from the Late Late Show. Apparently supporting Trump is just so offensive to her fragile frame.

Yet, Maia married Johnny Vegas, a man himself hounded by the same kind of witch-hunters she now counts herself a member of!



http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2008/05/01/6719/did_johnny_vegas_go_too_far%3F


Such hypocrites, these "stars"....

Protests against democracy in the US.
Protest against free speech.

Some people want to hear or allow what suits them and not accept the decision of the people.
They should look at themselves and be ashamed.

RobertKK

Amerika wrote: »

Anyone know what's up with Paddy Power? They paid out on a Clinton win early. How much did they lose and can they get any of it back?

The gamblers won, I had my money on Trump so it was nice to take some of their money.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Protests against democracy in the US.
Protest against free speech.

These things are not happening. Unless you count any protest against the government as a protest against democracy.

Not saying I agree with the protests but you have some level of hyperbole in your post. Realistically they will achieve nothing, I guess a show that the man does not speak for a decent proportion of the country and that many people don't want him representing him. Maybe to make a point that many don't endorse his views which would be a decent cause. Hopefully they get people into smaller positions looking to enact what they want on a local level before building up to elections in 2?years time and the big one in 4. That would achieve more. I reckon a protest would be better suited to when he does something dumb. I can't see why you would get overly upset about them either (unless something gets out of hand and even then it is just the violence part that should be disagreed with). If people want to vent and protest I don't have an issue with it.

Guess it might show some in the Senate that people might want a close eye on him but I can't see it influencing any of them.

Manach

"Boss of GrubHub tells employees they should RESIGN if they support new US President Donald Trump"
- http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/boss-grubhub-tells-employees-should-9237214
This is rather an interesting reaction, at least from an employment law perspective, from a Pro-Clinton CEO. Whilst this might be seen as a brave statement of liberal values it would also seem to alienate about 50% of their user base.

26000 Elephants

Nabber wrote: »

The constitution only applies to people within the jurisdiction of the constitution.

Your posts tangents off into areas of nationalism, race and sex. Religon is the issue I am discussing.

The first amendment prohibits the enacting of laws targeting one religion over another.

Emerson v. BoE

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another . . . in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.

Amazingfun

So, looks like The Great Wall of Trump is a go :-)

Immigration heavy-weight Kris Kobach is on the Team, and I am delighted. Kobach is a very good man, and will be prepared for the years of wailing and knashing of teeth that will accompany the project:

‘The wall is going to get built': Immigration hard-liner joins Trump transition

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/10/the-wall-is-going-to-get-built-immigration-hard-liner-joins-trump-transition/

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sure, but Hope Hicks clarified that he meant all Muslims.

Yeah, I know, the campaign said a few other contradictory things afterwards. So the upshot is, like pretty much any substantive issue: we still have no idea what it is he's actually proposing.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Protests against democracy in the US.
Protest against free speech.

Some people want to hear or allow what suits them and not accept the decision of the people.
They should look at themselves and be ashamed.

It's a not a protest against democracy, it's a protest against Trump's election as POTUS. I know it's quite nuanced and easily confused.

There are legitimate questions that need to be asked about how democratic the US actually is. Now is the time to ask those questions and not just of the Republicans but of both sides. The electoral college system is not truly democratic and the Senate elections are not democratic, one man does not equal one vote. The house elections are a joke thanks to horrific gerrymandering by both sides.

Convicted felons cannot vote in some states, disenfranchising them from the electoral system:

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

People are entitled to protest a man they don't feel truly represents them and given the fact that more people voted for Hillary it's hard to argue with them. You want to champion free speech in one line and then criticise others for exercising their right to free speech on another, stop the hypocrisy.

These deep, cavernous flaws and many others need to be addressed. The sad thing is they won't. The anger will subside and the system will roll on as it is.