Donald Trump Jr. and his emails

[ChrisTex]

Your dad is a wise man...how could those two parties come up with such undesirable leaders. Bernie Sanders looked more presidential than either and he's an independent who had to resort to joining a party to qualify.
USA had a clean sheet of paper to create their Constitution 228 years ago and it has been amended only 27 times. The electoral system of electing the president doesn't seem to be working so well. Maybe it's time to review so others, outside of party affiliations, can run for President
The concept of the USA Constitution was to create a separation of power....yet the 2 party partisan system seems to deny that objective and hold the 'people' hijacked to whoever has the majority power in the White House, Congress and selection of Supreme Court Judges. Today this doesn't appear to be as separate as the founding fathers recognized in 1789.

Bernie Sanders had a number of good ideas that looked good on paper, but if when you try to get them working in the real world, they don't work.

Heck, I even like some of the democratic party and his ideas, but the question is who is going to pay for all of it? Going to high school in the 90's, I heard go to college and get a degree so you can get a good job. Since 2008, we have seen lots of people with degrees(BA and MBA) who are struggling to find work.


There was one person who ran I think as a Libertarian, Gary Johnson who was the govenor from New Mexico. I know a few people who voted for him because they didn't like either Trump or Clinton. I knew a few people who wrote someone in as their vote. The person I wanted(Ben Carson) wasn't taken seriously and he didn't gain any traction.

The one thing I like about UK politics is the wide range of parties. It is almost guarenteed that one party is not going to be in control and it forces them to work together.

 

[Nimbus]

She would have been just as bad. Maybe not for the same things, but she would have been bad.

Your view illustrates my point exactly. I agree to vehemently and profoundly disagree with you.

 

[Jamu]

She would have been just as bad. Maybe not for the same things, but she would have been bad.

Nah, she would have been just the same old worn out politician like the rest of them. Not good but more like a Democrat equivalent of George W. Bush. Trump though, he's his own kind of special - a pathological liar, narcissist, racist, misogynist, con artist and mentally incompetent (most likely senile) old fool. In other words, probably the worst example of a human being you'd ever come across in life, outside of prison.

 

[ChrisTex]

Your view illustrates my point exactly. I agree to vehemently and profoundly disagree with you.

And you are basing this off of what exactly?

Condoleeza Rice would eat Hillary alive and would have been a better choice between the hillary and Trump.

 

[ChrisTex]

Nah, she would have been just the same old worn out politician like the rest of them. Not good but more like a Democrat equivalent of George W. Bush. Trump though, he's his own kind of special - a pathological liar, narcissist, racist, misogynist, con artist and mentally incompetent (most likely senile) old fool. In other words, probably the worst example of a human being you'd ever come across in life, outside of prison.

Yep, sounds like Hillary minus the misogynist.

 

[Jamu]

Yep, sounds like Hillary minus the misogynist.

C'mon, be serious. Clinton is on par with Bush Jr., both typically bad politicians tainted by various allegations, but not totally mentally unhinged like Trump.

 

[Nimbus]

And you are basing this off of what exactly?

Condoleeza Rice would eat Hillary alive and would have been a better choice between the hillary and Trump.

You are entitled to your opinion. If you think Clinton is as bad as Trump (just in a different way) despite all the facts available, I can't possibly have a productive discussion with you on the topic, so I won't even attempt it.

I would have better luck convincing a Protestant that salvation is available only through the Catholic Church.

 

[Nimbus]

C'mon, be serious. Clinton is on par with Bush Jr., both typically bad politicians tainted by various allegations, but not totally mentally unhinged like Trump.

He is serious, and he's one of the reasons Trump won.

 

[ChrisTex]

You are entitled to your opinion. If you think Clinton is as bad as Trump (just in a different way) despite all the facts available, I can't possibly have a productive discussion with you on the topic, so I won't even attempt it.

I would have better luck convincing a Protestant that salvation is available only through the Catholic Church.

What facts have you presented? You have yet to present anything so I will wait.

He is serious, and he's one of the reasons Trump won.

Actually I didn't vote for Trump. Nice try though.

 

[Nimbus]

What facts have you presented? You have yet to present anything so I will wait.

I did not present any fact. I only present facts when I attempt to change minds. No such attempt was made in your case, please don't wait.

Actually I didn't vote for Trump. Nice try though.

My bad. I didn't know you voted for Hillary.

 

[ChrisTex]

I did not present any fact. I only present facts when I attempt to change minds. No such attempt was made in your case, please don't wait.


My bad. I didn't know you voted for Hillary.

So in other words, if you are acting like antifa when you don't like what you hear. Gotcha.



I didn't vote for her either. Nice try once again.

 

[Nimbus]

So in other words, if you are acting like antifa when you don't like what you hear. Gotcha.

I have done nothing other than refusing to discuss the details with you. If in your mind that makes me an antifa with black clothes, mask, and guns physically confronting the alt right, then so be it. I can't control what you think.

I didn't vote for her either. Nice try once again.

So I was right all along, you are one of the reasons Trump won. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Daniel50]

It would seem to me that the American people are tired of political self interest in Washington. Now I know this is a broad statement which can be broken down into many differing groups. But I think people are just as tired on the democratic side.I was listening to some democrat, intellectual, and was surprised he indicated the democrats have not really been for the working people since the 50's or 60's. I guess special interests and money rule the day. A lot of people seem to know this and are disillusioned with the "system" and politicians on both sides.

 

[waarmstrong]

She would have been just as bad. Maybe not for the same things, but she would have been bad.

Seems like kind of a pointless argument, especially when the problem is how to deal with the dog shit deposited by the electoral college in the front yard.

 

[steveandpenny]

I'm tried of the insanity also (but can't help but watch it, like a train wreak). It's all now a blame game. It seems that no one does anything but blame someone else. What happened to the days you worked on problems instead of pointing fingers. And of my god how they love to spin and lie.

 

[ChrisTex]

Seems like kind of a pointless argument, especially when the problem is how to deal with the dog shit deposited by the electoral college in the front yard.

Depends, are you saying California, New York, and Texas(the states with the largest electoral votes) should decide for everyone else because they have the biggest populations?

The only real way to make fix this debate is maybe having states have the same number of electoral votes(say 2, like the number of reps in the Senate). The only issue then is what if there was a tie.

 

[ChrisTex]

I have done nothing other than refusing to discuss the details with you. If in your mind that makes me an antifa with black clothes, mask, and guns physically confronting the alt right, then so be it. I can't control what you think.

No, but you are throwing the dummy out of the pram and not backing up anything up just like they do.

So I was right all along, you are one of the reasons Trump won. Thanks for the clarification.

Actually you aren't right for the third time. So strike 3, you're out.

Let shed some light on why you are wrong.

California and New York state 99.99% of the time are always going to vote democratic.

Texas 99.99% of the time is always going to vote republican.

So if you live in any of those 3 states, if you vote against the norm, you vote doesn't matter.


I actually didn't vote because my vote wouldn't have mattered. The person I wanted to get the nomination(Ben Carson) didn't get much of a sniff. The one person(Condoleeza Rice) I wanted to run, didn't.

Trump won because people were tired of only politicians running. Trump through a wrench into that which got people side with him. In some states, the democrats ignored 3 states(Wisconsin and Penn come to mind. I can't remember the third one) and the people saw that as a slap in the face so they voted Trump.

Keep in mind the emails and Benghazi were also present which hurt hillary.

That is just some of the reasons why Trump won.

Now what say you?

 

[waarmstrong]

Depends, are you saying California, New York, and Texas(the states with the largest electoral votes) should decide for everyone else because they have the biggest populations?

The only real way to make fix this debate is maybe having states have the same number of electoral votes(say 2, like the number of reps in the Senate). The only issue then is what if there was a tie.

Let me get this straight. A win in a state of 38 million people (California) would have the same impact as a win in a state of 600 thousand (Wyoming). Is what you are proposing?

Seems to me is would be easier (and I am guessing, more democratic, small d) to simply shit can the electoral college, so that the candidate who gets the most votes wins. Then your vote in Texas would matter and the swing-state baloney would be out the window.

 

[Davita]

The one thing I like about UK politics is the wide range of parties. It is almost guarenteed that one party is not going to be in control and it forces them to work together.

The UK's 'Westminster' model of parliament is an evolved system which came from the bad old days of dictatorial Monarchs...so it isn't a real a democracy as the Queen is still Head of State and Commander in Chief of the Military. Also, the UK House of Lords isn't democratically voted...they're appointed.
However, It does work and is emulated in nearly all the old British Colonies as they haven't yet found a better way. Some Australians want to have a Republic but cannot agree how it will be constituted.
You are correct Chris that UK isn't subject to a limited 2 party system, as in USA, but sometimes one party does get a majority and that, historically, is when UK gets worried. Most feel if the politicians argue, but not actually agree, the country just rolls along and gets better...it's when ideas like Cameron's referendum on Brexit is floated, and not returned the way he wanted, that the country is in trouble...as at present.
I don't think that the Westminster model is any better but it does seem to have more balanced opinions debated than the partisanships that has developed under the US system of government.
Federalism is far too concentrated in the hands of too few in the same club..... so maybe the idea of Proportional Representation is something that should be looked at.

 

[dafluff]

The only real way to make fix this debate is maybe having states have the same number of electoral votes(say 2, like the number of reps in the Senate). The only issue then is what if there was a tie.

This is the exact opposite of a fix. The "problem" is that in terms of electoral vote, small states (small in terms of population) have a much greater say than large states. For example, right now an Electoral Vote from Wyoming is proportional to 142,000 popular votes. In New York, an Electoral Vote is proportional to 519,000 popular votes.

In other words, a regular voter in Wyoming has 3.65 times more weight than a voter in New York. This is not a fair democracy in any normal sense of the word.

The second issue is the winner-takes all system that most states have. This leads to voters in swing states like Ohio having way too much power. This is one of the reason that "coal jobs" was such a big issue, when in fact "coal jobs" is something like 0.05% of all jobs (approximately 70,000 jobs out of a 120 million jobs).