Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Leroy42

Brian? wrote: »

If you scrap the EC you have to completely restructure the Senate as well. In the senate both Alaska and California have the same representation, which is completely undemocratic.

The simple answer is that the USA isn’t a democracy and was never intended to be one.

Why would you have to scrap the senate?

Two different executives.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1210350571452022784?s=19

He is so transparent. He accuses others of doing exactly what he would do given the chance.

He is also the most sensitive, easily offended and insecure person I've ever witnessed.

And to think his supporters believe him to be some sort of tough guy. Lol

Brian?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would you have to scrap the senate?

Two different executives.

I didn’t say scrap, I said “sort out”. If the EC needs to go because it’s undemocratic then the senate should also be changed as it’s even worse.

Neither will happen though.

salmocab

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1210350571452022784?s=19

He is so transparent. He accuses others of doing exactly what he would do given the chance.

He is also the most sensitive, easily offended and insecure person I've ever witnessed.

And to think his supporters believe him to be some sort of tough guy. Lol

It’s also pathetic from the point of view that he either knows Trudeau had nothing to do with it or he’s an idiot. He’s either lying or an idiot basically.

duploelabs

salmocab wrote: »

It’s also pathetic from the point of view that he either knows Trudeau had nothing to do with it or he’s an idiot. He’s either lying or an idiot basically.

Why not both?

salmocab

salmocab wrote: »

He’s either lying or an idiot basically.

So far his tenure has been a mix of both.
While the same can be said for the majority of politicians, elected and not. Bush Jr and P. Rabbitte spring to mind for example, he has just brought it up a level.

salmocab

DubInMeath wrote: »

So far his tenure has been a mix of both.
While the same can be said for the majority of politicians, elected and not. Bush Jr and P. Rabbitte spring to mind for example, he has just brought it up a level.

It bothers me that his base must see this but for their own reasons choose to ignore it. A lot I’m sure love their constitutional rights to guns and will fight for those rights but will pretend that when he does something unconstitutional that it doesn’t matter. It’s hypocrisy on a national scale.

stefanovich

PropJoe10 wrote: »

There's a few people waiting for you to expand on this, myself included. It'd be good to get some background on this. Thanks.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIPw_Who7E

This is Biden literally bragging about quid pro quo.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

They certainly will, if they want to win the Primary nomination. Look at how many stops Clinton made in California to make sure she didn't lose the State to Bernie, even though it was already accepted by that stage that she was going to win the nomination overall. Then imagine if the Primary nomination were even more competetive.

If you wish to put it this way, California and New York have disproportionate sway compared to other states over who is going to be the Democratic candidate. Once they've made their choice, they sit back and see whether or not the rest of the country agrees with them. In order to even run for the Presidential race, the candidates need to pass muster with the solidly colored States and campaign for their vote. If you wish to advocate the idea that elections are all but won/lost depending on who the candidates are, that selection happens before anyone shows up in November, and nobody takes the solid states populations for granted on that matter.

As an aside, Trump/Pence raised eyebrows over how much time they spent campaigning in New York and California. They clocked up 14 days in New York, Clinton/Kaine 21.



You have basically just described the US. Each State has a full legislature, a Constitution which is the foundation of individual sets of laws and legal systems, court systems up to Supreme Courts, police forces, militaries, education systems and curricula, standards certifications... basically, everything a sovereign state needs to operate effectively. A lawyer or cop from California, for example, has no power, recognition or authority in Arizona unless Arizona lets them. I don't think foreigners truly understand how much autonomy a State has in the US. The only thing they are flat prohibited from doing which an EU country can do is international relations. A State cannot enter into treaties with other nations, to include the Indian nations (or States, without the consent of Congress), they do not police their borders, and they cannot make war on other nations. That's basically it. Congress is supposed to handle all the external stuff, and to make sure that the States work and play well together.



It does, because of the possibility of faithless electors. They have never yet proven to be so numerous as to upend the final result, but it remains a theoretical possibility. The mechanism of the elector can be replaced, though, without affecting the balance of power between states and their populations.



I don't see why the two cannot both be correct. Given the way that the system was designed from the beginning, recognition was always given to the fact that some States with higher population counts needed to have a bit more weight than smaller States. That California has 55 votes is perhaps a larger number than originally anticipated (I can't imagine 18th century politicians contemplated State populations in excess of 35 million), but maybe I do them a misjustice. After all, they certainly never put a top end cap on it.

The US president and Congress has far, far more power than the EU governing bodies does. Can California veto a large chunk of legislation? I.e. could California veto a trade agreement with Brazil say? There is a big difference in powers. This veto forces the EU to pay far more attention to each country while making trade negotiations. Even in stuff the states are meant to have power over, weed is still illegal across all 50 states, merely not enforced in a few. The EU could not do something like that, even if didn't enforce it.

Primaries are not the same thing as the presidential election. Yeah Trump was dumb spending time in New York. That was never happening even if he thought it was his home state.

The US system means large portions of the country can be in complete opposition to the president. The EU veto requires countries to work together as Nation states. The US is more separate than say Ireland but is a long way of the Independence of actual sovereign nations. We can also leave if we are unhappy with the direction and have a legal framework in place for it.

Leroy42

stefanovich wrote: »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIPw_Who7E

This is Biden literally bragging about quid pro quo.

So in the case of Trump, we have a man looking to use the power of the office to get a foreign country to investigate a political rivals son. Which would have no overall impact on the country or any benefit to the US.

In Biden, we have a VP using the power of the office to force a foreign country to undertake reforms to move the country forward, thus helping the US.

You understand the difference I trust?

Boredstiff666

Leroy42 wrote: »

In Biden, we have a VP using the power of the office to force a foreign country to undertake reforms to move the country forward, thus helping the US.

You understand the difference I trust?

So if Boris did that with Ireland you would be all for it to the same degree then?

Cody montana

stefanovich wrote: »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIPw_Who7E

This is Biden literally bragging about quid pro quo.

Erm, to remove a corrupt individual.
With the backing of the EU, the IMF and other countries.

beggars_bush

As far as I know Trump is the only cast member from Home Alone 2 to have been impeached

PropJoe10

salmocab wrote: »

It’s also pathetic from the point of view that he either knows Trudeau had nothing to do with it or he’s an idiot. He’s either lying or an idiot basically.

You summed up the entire persona of Donald J. Trump in one sentence. Nice job!

stefanovich

Leroy42 wrote: »

So in the case of Trump, we have a man looking to use the power of the office to get a foreign country to investigate a political rivals son. Which would have no overall impact on the country or any benefit to the US.

In Biden, we have a VP using the power of the office to force a foreign country to undertake reforms to move the country forward, thus helping the US.

You understand the difference I trust?

Withholding a billion dollars of aid to the gas industry unless a prosecutor was fired.

2 days before his son was appointed as a board member for burismo Joe had a meeting with another board member at the White House which went on into the night.

Look at the character of Joe when confronted by an 83 year old. Extremely aggressive.

https://youtu.be/g51dwY0wuak

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

.

Look at the character of Joe when confronted by an 83 year old. Extremely aggressive.

https://youtu.be/g51dwY0wuak

Look at Trump when he's confronted by anything he doesn't like. Trump supporters cannot complain about this stuff.

MadYaker

stefanovich wrote: »

Withholding a billion dollars of aid to the gas industry unless a prosecutor was fired.

2 days before his son was appointed as a board member for burismo Joe had a meeting with another board member at the White House which went on into the night.

Look at the character of Joe when confronted by an 83 year old. Extremely aggressive.

https://youtu.be/g51dwY0wuak

Hilarious but pathetic at the same time. Where's th investigation into burisma so?

Also if you have such high standards for character then you must think Trump is a massive arsehole.

salmocab

salmocab wrote: »

It bothers me that his base must see this but for their own reasons choose to ignore it. A lot I’m sure love their constitutional rights to guns and will fight for those rights but will pretend that when he does something unconstitutional that it doesn’t matter. It’s hypocrisy on a national scale.

Who exactly supposed to be his base now apart from the types whose parents/grandparents were "reds under the bed" believers, and are now apparently going around with better Russian than tops.

It's only recently that some of the evangelical christians (the send money now crowd) have come close to speaking out against him despite being an adulterer etc.

The gun nuts are basically just that, nuts.

Big business like him, their not just that vocal in their support, tax cuts and worsening employment laws for example.

At this point if his base, who were supposed to be the little guy, still think he's for the little guy, their delusional, or the nasty side of his personality appeals to them so much their willing to be ****ed.over in order for their beliefs to be championed by him.

In short the states have been full of grifters in public life for decades and he's just escalating it and some people are stupid enough to believe it or just have him championing their beliefs.

stefanovich

MadYaker wrote: »

Hilarious but pathetic at the same time. Where's th investigation into burisma so?

Also if you have such high standards for character then you must think Trump is a massive arsehole.

He’s an arsehole. I just think the dems are massive hypocrites and have a lot of questions to answer.

The Phantom Jipper

stefanovich wrote: »

He’s an arsehole. I just think the dems are massive hypocrites and have a lot of questions to answer.

There are no questions to answer, at least not on this topic. Biden was pursuing US government policy that had Republican support. Pretend for a moment that his son was involved in anything improper, Joe Biden's actions meant that his son would face increased scrutiny.

It's nothing more than a shoddy attempt to manufacture a scandal about Biden, to create the illusion that "both sides are as bad each other".

valoren

beggars_bush wrote: »

As far as I know Trump is the only cast member from Home Alone 2 to have been impeached

I can imagine it was also likely a quid pro quo even back then with the production team in negotiating the use of the Plaza hotel offering then owner Trump a cameo to smooth along the negotiations. Also likely that Trump himself insisted he get a cameo in the sequel to the then most successful comedy film ever. The reason CBC cut it was for timing as brief as his appearance is, it has nothing to do with the plot.

salmocab

valoren wrote: »

I can imagine it was also likely a quid pro quo even back then with the production team in negotiating the use of the Plaza hotel offering then owner Trump a cameo to smooth along the negotiations. Also likely that Trump himself insisted he get a cameo in the sequel to the then most successful comedy film ever. The reason CBC cut it was for timing as brief as his appearance is, it has nothing to do with the plot.

I’m sure CBC cut it because they didn’t want to show him, not sure why anyone would care or why he would think it was anything to do with Trudeau. It’s another nothing story that he’s managed to use to promote himself.

Leroy42

stefanovich wrote: »

He’s an arsehole. I just think the dems are massive hypocrites and have a lot of questions to answer.

That may well be the case, but can you remember the GOP coming out and saying that HC should not be investigated because other people also had questions to answer? Or maybe try telling the police that everyone else speeds so you be be let off?

Go and investigate others by all means, but that does not limit the basis that Trump has serious questions to answer.

The very fact that people are trying to equate Biden with Trump in terms of QPQ, means that even they accept that Trump did it. The only question remains as to why? Did he do it for his own gain, or for the gain of the US. The latter is perfectly acceptable and normal business (US uses it considerable clout to get its way in most countries, including Ireland) the former is not.

It is the former that is being investigated.

Leroy42

salmocab wrote: »

I’m sure CBC cut it because they didn’t want to show him, not sure why anyone would care or why he would think it was anything to do with Trudeau. It’s another nothing story that he’s managed to use to promote himself.

Apparently the cut was made back in 2014, but allow greater advert space. 2014 was an entire year prior to Trump even announcing his run for POTUS.

As usual, the Snowflake in chief is both easily triggered and totally clueless of the facts

Nody

valoren wrote: »

I can imagine it was also likely a quid pro quo even back then with the production team in negotiating the use of the Plaza hotel offering then owner Trump a cameo to smooth along the negotiations. Also likely that Trump himself insisted he get a cameo in the sequel to the then most successful comedy film ever. The reason CBC cut it was for timing as brief as his appearance is, it has nothing to do with the plot.

CBC cut out 8 minutes worth of scenes back in 2014; well before he was going for presidency and they stated it was because they needed to shorten it to get more add time into it. Cutting 7s of Trump happen to be part of the overall 8 minutes cut because it was filler stuff anyway.

salmocab

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apparently the cut was made back in 2014, but allow greater advert space. 2014 was an entire year prior to Trump even announcing his run for POTUS.

As usual, the Snowflake in chief is both easily triggered and totally clueless of the facts

Ah fair enough so

Leroy42

salmocab wrote: »

Ah fair enough so

But as you say it a nothing story.

The US is apparently build on freedom, and the problem is that there are too many snowflakes.

Yet they currently has a POTUS that is totally opposed to anybody doing anything he doesn't like and is one of the most easily triggered people on the planet!

And yet for some reason some people still seem to believe that Trump is working for them. Look at anything he complains about, it is always based on him not being treated as he wishes.

Why do people think he acts differently when dealing with work then he does at all other times?

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

The US president and Congress has far, far more power than the EU governing bodies does. Can California veto a large chunk of legislation? I.e. could California veto a trade agreement with Brazil say? There is a big difference in powers. This veto forces the EU to pay far more attention to each country while making trade negotiations. Even in stuff the states are meant to have power over, weed is still illegal across all 50 states, merely not enforced in a few. The EU could not do something like that, even if didn't enforce it.

I'm not sure the EU can't, and I believe you may be overstating the power of the Irish veto which applies only in a minority of situations, mainly relating to taxation and foreign affairs. For example, after strenuously objecting to new firearms law, and being unable to veto it as a category of law which merely required a qualified majority in the EU, Czechia took the EU to court. They lost. I guess if it's that important to them, they could always leave the Union, which a US State can't. Of note, the EU leadership is attempting to get rid of even the few national vetoes, granted, unsuccessfully so far.

On the other hand, US federal legislative authority over States is primarily limited to things which cross State lines. For other things, the States either have to be blackmailed (example, drinking age, speed limits) if there can be a connection between the blackmailing item and the endstate (eg road funding for speed limits), or it can't be done at all. For example, Congress attempted, after a school shooting, to ban guns in schools nationwide, it got thrown out by the courts as not being a federal problem, and notice how the Federal government seems powerless to prevent the States from non-co-operating on immigration enforcement.

The Federal government does have some powers that the EU does not, particularly in the area of law enforcement, but the issue is really more a matter of degree and balance, not a philosophical one. The EU may dangle money as a carrot instead of as blackmail, but then again, I don't recall any US State being fined by the Federal Government for non-compliance with a federal regulation. In any case, the majority of laws, policies and regulation which affect my daily life are drawn up by the State, which is similar to the EU's position.

[ETA: Consider it this way. Oklahoma's relationship with the Federal Government is far, far closer, not identical, but far closer to Ireland's relationship with the EU than the next level down: County Wexford's relationship with the Irish Government.]

Primaries are not the same thing as the presidential election. Yeah Trump was dumb spending time in New York. That was never happening even if he thought it was his home state.

Agreed, but on the other hand, the Presidential election is basically the swing or smaller states being told "take it or leave it, these are your choices made by the big guys". As a result, all the states are influencial, just at different times in the process.

Leroy42

But don't you think that each persons vote should be treated equally?

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

But don't you think that each persons vote should be treated equally?

Not if it conflicts with

1. Gun ownership

2. Taxation.


Two things that a lightweight republican only cares about. But is willing to sell their soul for.


Mad isn't it.