Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

America under President Trump

Recommended Posts

On 9/20/2019 at 5:20 PM, Zeitgeist said:

I forgot another great tradition of yours to ensure success for the vested interests: jerrymandering.

from Wikipedia:

Clinton received 2.87 million more votesnationwide (the largest margin ever for a candidate who lost the electoral college), a margin of 2.1%”

She also lost the election by a HUGE margin.

It's her own damn fault that she didn't campaign in so many states, and that is just more proof that she lacked the wisdom/intelligence to lead the country.

That election result is a perfect example of the EXACT REASON why the electoral college was set up in the first place. So that people had to try to win votes ALL ACROSS AMERICA instead of just campaigning in a few areas with large populations. If you google electoral college you'll see it says that it was set up so that the entire election couldn't be decided by just winning in NYC, Boston, Hartford, Philadelphia and I forget the other city. So in other words, the voters in 5 cities don't run the whole country. 

FYI Hillary won California by 4.4 million votes Zeitgeist (8.7M to 4.4M). So the truth is that Trump won the rest of America by almost 2 million votes. By your [anti-electoral-college] reasoning California should just be allowed to elect the President. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious how one can justify Trump asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a potential political rival and threatening to withhold military aid is proper and not appallingly corrupt? 

Or is it just OK because Trump's a good guy and all the Dems are evil? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Boges said:

Just curious how one can justify Trump asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a potential political rival and threatening to withhold military aid is proper and not appallingly corrupt? 

Or is it just OK because Trump's a good guy and all the Dems are evil? 

Were you thinking hillary clinton and joe biden, but, somehow, wrote Trump instead?

Share this post


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

Were you thinking hillary clinton and joe biden, but, somehow, wrote Trump instead?

Oh so that's how. People who aren't POTUS supposedly did it, so it's OK for 45 to do it. 

When/If a Democrat ever gets back into the Oval Office, it'll be astonishing to see the GOP reaction exhibit this level of lawlessness. 

Share this post


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

Just curious how one can justify Trump asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a potential political rival and threatening to withhold military aid is proper and not appallingly corrupt? 

Or is it just OK because Trump's a good guy and all the Dems are evil? 

I don't think there's a way to justify it.  Although, I also don't think there's a way to justify Joe Biden using his power and influence while in office to end an investigation into his son and his shady dealing with Ukraine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Boges said:

When/If a Democrat ever gets back into the Oval Office, it'll be astonishing to see the GOP reaction exhibit this level of lawlessness. 

Laws were broken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Boges said:

Oh so that's how. People who aren't POTUS supposedly did it, so it's OK for 45 to do it. 

When/If a Democrat ever gets back into the Oval Office, it'll be astonishing to see the GOP reaction exhibit this level of lawlessness. 

sry, I mean this

 

Edited by egghead

Share this post


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

Just curious how one can justify Trump asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a potential political rival and threatening to withhold military aid is proper and not appallingly corrupt?

 

Using the now famous Canadian ethics violation standard, "no laws were broken".

U.S. presidents (and Congress) have used American aid for leverage many times in the past...for many different things.

Once again, Trump is just being a U.S. president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Using the now famous Canadian ethics violation standard, "no laws were broken".

U.S. presidents (and Congress) have used American aid for leverage many times in the past...for many different things.

Once again, Trump is just being a U.S. president.

To settle personal scores? 

And if he's just being president, why aren't they turning over the transcripts to Congress like the law says? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Boges said:

To settle personal scores? 

And if he's just being president, why aren't they turning over the transcripts to Congress like the law says? 

 

Who says its personal....it's political.

The transcript is still in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Who says its personal....it's political.

The transcript is still in play.

OK political scores. Cite precedent for that. 

And the law says a complaint of this type should be turned over to congress immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Boges said:

OK political scores. Cite precedent for that. 

And the law says a complaint of this type should be turned over to congress immediately. 

 

Seriously ?    Go study more American foreign aid history...lots of political scores in play, including aid to Israel.   U.S. administrations have often used foreign aid as carrot and stick to affect policy, sometimes in opposition to political critics back home.   Anti-abortion efforts can be directly linked to U.S. foreign aid decisions depending on who is president.   Abortion policy impacts votes and elections.

The law says a lot of things....so follow the law.

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Seriously ?    Go study more American foreign aid history...lots of political scores in play, including aid to Israel.   U.S. administrations have often used foreign aid as carrot and stick to affect policy, sometimes in opposition to political critics back home.   Anti-abortion efforts can be directly linked to U.S. foreign aid decisions depending on who is president.   Abortion policy impacts votes and elections.

The law says a lot of things....so follow the law.

OK then cite an example where a POTUS used the threat of offering or withholding aid in exchange for an investigation on a political opponent.  I'll hang up and listen. 

Heck Nixon was impeached for spying on the Dems and trying to cover it up. This is much worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2019 at 11:54 AM, WestCanMan said:

She also lost the election by a HUGE margin.

It's her own damn fault that she didn't campaign in so many states, and that is just more proof that she lacked the wisdom/intelligence to lead the country.

That election result is a perfect example of the EXACT REASON why the electoral college was set up in the first place. So that people had to try to win votes ALL ACROSS AMERICA instead of just campaigning in a few areas with large populations. If you google electoral college you'll see it says that it was set up so that the entire election couldn't be decided by just winning in NYC, Boston, Hartford, Philadelphia and I forget the other city. So in other words, the voters in 5 cities don't run the whole country. 

FYI Hillary won California by 4.4 million votes Zeitgeist (8.7M to 4.4M). So the truth is that Trump won the rest of America by almost 2 million votes. By your [anti-electoral-college] reasoning California should just be allowed to elect the President. 

The fathers of the American constitution knew what they were doing when they implemented the electoral college. And the dumbocrats never complained about the electoral college when Obama or Clinton won their elections but now that Trump won the Presidency they want the electoral college gone. Gawd these democrats are such crybaby losers. Voting for a democrat in the next election is a vote for a bunch of crybaby losers. All those fools have to offer the American people since Trump was elected was impeachment-impeachment-impeachment. They have nothing else to offer the American people but bull chit. That is why Trump will win the next election. And I guess that the dumbocrats will play that same game all over again and look to try and impeach Trump all over again. Some people's kids! They never seem to grow up and act like real men and women. The world is full of immature men and women who will never grow up and stop whining like a bunch of sore loser crybaby's which is what most liberals and democrats are. A bunch of children still playing on playground swings. Deplorable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, taxme said:

The fathers of the American constitution knew what they were doing when they implemented the electoral college. And the dumbocrats never complained about the electoral college when Obama or Clinton won their elections but now that Trump won the Presidency they want the electoral college gone. Gawd these democrats are such crybaby losers. Voting for a democrat in the next election is a vote for a bunch of crybaby losers. All those fools have to offer the American people since Trump was elected was impeachment-impeachment-impeachment. They have nothing else to offer the American people but bull chit. That is why Trump will win the next election. And I guess that the dumbocrats will play that same game all over again and look to try and impeach Trump all over again. Some people's kids! They never seem to grow up and act like real men and women. The world is full of immature men and women who will never grow up and stop whining like a bunch of sore loser crybaby's which is what most liberals and democrats are. A bunch of children still playing on playground swings. Deplorable.  

Wouldn't the EC be better if states weren't winner take all? Each EC vote represents a district in the House of Representative. Shouldn't that's district's choice for POTUS be how the EC vote is cast and not winner take all? 

In the current system you have states that are majority blue or majority red by a certain margin. There's no need to campaign in those states because they're so partisan. So the only important states are the purple ones (Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania etc). A state like Wisconsin can go to a Candidate by the smallest margin, but all the EC votes go to the winner. How is that representative?

Conversely, it would mean that candidate could campaign in other red or blue states because some targeted EC votes could be obtained. 

eg: Austin in Texas or Buffalo in New York. Those are areas in an otherwise safe state that would go against the EC win or take all model. 

If there are 435 districts, there should be 435 separate electors that represent each district. The state of Maine already does this with its four EC votes. 

Edited by Boges

Share this post


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

OK then cite an example where a POTUS used the threat of offering or withholding aid in exchange for an investigation on a political opponent.  I'll hang up and listen. 

Heck Nixon was impeached for spying on the Dems and trying to cover it up. This is much worse. 

 

Nixon was not impeached....he resigned.

FDR routinely used domestic and foreign aid against his political opponents.  FDR conspired with the British to get America into WW2 with massive amounts of aid while helping to defeat FDR's political opponents in the U.S. with a foreign intervention election campaign that makes Russia look like Boy Scouts in 2016.

 

Quote

The BSC's work on Willkie's behalf was an exception. For the most part, it focused not on promoting candidates, but rather on defeating elected officials who opposed American intervention in the war.

Among those opponents was Rep. Hamilton Stuyvesant Fish III, a Republican and leading isolationist who had represented New York’s Hudson Valley in Congress since 1920. By picking a high-profile target, the campaign against Fish was intended to “put the fear of God into every isolationist senator and congressman in the country,” according to a letter a BSC agent sent in fall 1940.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/when-a-foreign-government-interfered-in-a-us-electionto-reelect-fdr-214634

 

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


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

Wouldn't the EC be better if states weren't winner take all?

 

No....because small and medium size population states may not want to dilute their relevance and impact.

Some states have chosen to apportion EC votes...most haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shady said:

I don't think there's a way to justify it.  Although, I also don't think there's a way to justify Joe Biden using his power and influence while in office to end an investigation into his son and his shady dealing with Ukraine.

You are not understanding the facts again. Nobody was investigating his son. His son was on a board of a company that was being investigated before he joined the board. The prosecutor was not actively pursuing that company when he was removed. Others were, however, and they were not removed. The investigation proceeded after the removal of that prosecutor.

So it looks like an attempt to use the office of the president to coerce Ukraine to smear Biden for political purposes. Trump's refusal to release the transcript of the phone call to Congress makes that interpretation rather convincing.

Edited by BubberMiley

Share this post


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

Wouldn't the EC be better if states weren't winner take all? Each EC vote represents a district in the House of Representative. Shouldn't that's district's choice for POTUS be how the EC vote is cast and not winner take all? 

In the current system you have states that are majority blue or majority red by a certain margin. There's no need to campaign in those states because they're so partisan. So the only important states are the purple ones (Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania etc). A state like Wisconsin can go to a Candidate by the smallest margin, but all the EC votes go to the winner. How is that representative?

Conversely, it would mean that candidate could campaign in other red or blue states because some targeted EC votes could be obtained. 

eg: Austin in Texas or Buffalo in New York. Those are areas in an otherwise safe state that would go against the EC win or take all model. 

If there are 435 districts, there should be 435 separate electors that represent each district. The state of Maine already does this with its four EC votes. 

Presidential and Congressional elections are separate, the districts choice for POTUS is irrelevant, unless the states want them to matter. Under the system you propose, candidates would only campaign in major cities and the rest of the country would be completely ignored. This is not Canada, where the PM sits in Parliament, and it should not be treated as such.

The President is suppose represent the entire country, not just the urban districts. The House already represents the districts, you don't the need the President to be elected by whoever controls the House. The President is suppose to check the power of the House, and the House is supposed to check the power of the President, intertwining them as you suggest is against the very ethos of America, checks and balances, that's why the EC exists as it does.

Trying to remake America in Canada's image simply doesn't fly south of the border, nor should it. You really want to give Trump Nancy Pelosi's job on top of his own? That's your plan to MAGA? Be careful what you wish for, stop only thinking about how things would work if the side you prefer had power, and start thinking about how things would work if the side you don't prefer had that power, because the pendulum will eventually swing a direction you find distasteful. If you design a system that only works well if the side you trust has power, then all that extra power you just gave to the President is eventually going to be used by a President you don't like, it's an extremely short sighted plan that is bound to backfire on you, and you aren't going to like the results when it does.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

So it looks like an attempt to use the office of the president to coerce Ukraine to smear Biden for political purposes.

No need. It appears Biden may have smeared himself.

Quote

Trump's refusal to release the transcript of the phone call to Congress makes that interpretation rather convincing.

Indeed, the absence of evidence is evidence there is something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Indeed, the absence of evidence is evidence there is something.

Logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can't prove a negative.

Hence innocent until proven, and not guilty until proven innocent, you can't prove innocence, but you can prove guilt, hence the standard.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

No need. It appears Biden may have smeared himself.

Indeed, the absence of evidence is evidence there is something.

Trump seems particularly incoherent and red-faced and sweaty when he talks about it too. It must be sad for you to watch him go down in such a pathetic manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Trump seems particularly incoherent and red-faced and sweaty when he talks about it too. It must be sad for you to watch him go down in such a pathetic manner.

Drumpf is done now. Said wishful thinkers for billionth time, they never grow tired of being wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Drumpf is done now. Said wishful thinkers for billionth time, they never grow tired of being wrong.

I don't think he'll be impeached but he's done. He literally can't form a sentence that is coherent anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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...