Trump vs Hillary 2016

Quote: kenarman

Where do stand on the Senate then Nareed?

On the side of good grammar. :)

Quote:

On one hand each state is a true democratic vote but each state gets 2 senators regardless of size. I haven't done the research but I expect seldom is the Senate controlled by the party with the most votes.

The senate doesn't make policy, it's not one person, it cannot mobilize troops, it cannot order federal agencies to harass individuals, it cannot issue executive orders, and plenty of other things it can't do.

It could profitably be reformed, though. Extend terms to ten years, and limit the terms to two. That way a senator can spend less time campaigning and more time legislating, plus in the second term they'd be relatively free from party pressures.

I'll tell you what's gone broken beyond repair: checks and balances. These days they work only when the government is split with one party in the presidency and another in Congress. When the same party has both branches, Congress becomes a rubber stamp. This goes for both parties. And that kind of tribalist rule is more suited to a banana republic than to a sovereign country.

The judiciary still works largely as intended, but there are plenty of ways to screw it up still. If you want something to damn Obama for, it's his threat to disrupt the Supreme Court for short-term political gain.

A good reform for the Congress, given the tribalist voting, would be to require only a 45% plurality to repeal any law. This works on two levels 1) It forces the parties to compromise, regardless of which one holds a majority, 2) a large problem in many countries is the inability to get rid of bad but popular laws. Things like the "Patriot" Act or Obamacare might still have passed, but they could have been taken down later.

Quote: Nareed

On the side of good grammar. :)




The senate doesn't make policy, it's not one person, it cannot mobilize troops, it cannot order federal agencies to harass individuals, it cannot issue executive orders, and plenty of other things it can't do.

It could profitably be reformed, though. Extend terms to ten years, and limit the terms to two. That way a senator can spend less time campaigning and more time legislating, plus in the second term they'd be relatively free from party pressures.

I'll tell you what's gone broken beyond repair: checks and balances. These days they work only when the government is split with one party in the presidency and another in Congress. When the same party has both branches, Congress becomes a rubber stamp. This goes for both parties. And that kind of tribalist rule is more suited to a banana republic than to a sovereign country.

The judiciary still works largely as intended, but there are plenty of ways to screw it up still. If you want something to damn Obama for, it's his threat to disrupt the Supreme Court for short-term political gain.

So what you are saying is that if the population is united enough for the same party to win the presidency and both branches of congress than this is a bad thing because something might actually get done?

Quote: kenarman

So what you are saying is that if the population is united enough for the same party to win the presidency and both branches of congress than this is a bad thing because something might actually get done?

I'm saying the majority tends to ignore and/or screw over the minority. Your side is never completely right and the other side is never completely wrong. The point of government isn't to beat the other party at every turn, is it?

What's really ironic is many on the right claim "America is not a democracy," meaning there's no unlimited majority rule. Yet when they control the legislative and executive branches, they're fine imposing unlimited majority rule. Of course it's a terrible thing when the other party does it.

Look, both parties claim they've found the formula, system, means, etc. for a permanent majority. Then they lose the Congress in a mid-term election. And then they lose the White House in a general election, and then the other party claims a permanent majority. But then they lose the Congress in a mid-term, and so on goes the cycle.

No party will ever have a permanent majority. But as long as they act as though this time they will, they'll just keep on antagonizing the other party, and being antagonized by the other party in turn.

What good does that do?

Ronald Reagan had to deal with a Democratic controlled congress much of his presidency. I think he managed to get a few things done anyway.

Quote: Nareed

I'm saying the majority tends to ignore and/or screw over the minority. Your side is never completely right and the other side is never completely wrong. The point of government isn't to beat the other party at every turn, is it?

I totally agree with that statement Nareed but it is the left that seems to have absolutely no give now. The right wasn't rioting in the streets when Obama got elected. Your own posts in regards to Trump are not particularly conciliatory or showing a wait and see attitude but could be considered racist against orange haired people.

I have always enjoyed a good debate and all I ever asked was that the person I was having a discussion with was actually thinking and presenting valid points to defend their views, not just repeating dogma they didn't understand. This lively debate used to be the case more often than not. Now I find that most people don't even want to discuss events. Their mind has been made up and they feel there is no sense in further discussion, as if the state of things in the world were static rather than dynamic.

This creates the issue now that the half of the population that is not in power feels that their views are being ignored. If you take the pipeline issues there is no middle position you either build the pipeline or you don't, somebodies Ox is going to get gored. The only compromise positions available are in safety measures, volumes, routing etc. but regardless of the decision half the population will feel they have been ignored. The pro pipeline people will not be in the streets practicing civil disobedience but this is considered fine for the against faction since they are sure they have the "moral right" to do so.

Quote: kenarman

The pro pipeline people will not be in the streets practicing civil disobedience but this is considered fine for the against faction since they are sure they have the "moral right" to do so.

Nothing is stopping the pro people from doing the same, so I see no issue there.

Quote: rxwine

Nothing is stopping the pro people from doing the same, so I see no issue there.

The point was that sometimes your position is not ratified by the legally elected government and the government should be allowed to carry on governing. Accept the fact that no one gets all the things they want and don't stomp around in circles like a spoilt child when you don't get your way.

Quote: kenarman

I totally agree with that statement Nareed but it is the left that seems to have absolutely no give now.

Neither does the right.

Quote:

The right wasn't rioting in the streets when Obama got elected.

No, but they were flatly rejecting everything, and making up stories about his ancestry.

Quote:

Your own posts in regards to Trump are not particularly conciliatory or showing a wait and see attitude but could be considered racist against orange haired people.

I'm treating Corrupt Donald exactly how he treats other people. Respect is something that can be given and it can be taken away. You begin with a modicum of respect towards others, until they show whether they deserve it nor not. The Orange Man does not.

If I can be called racist for hating one person, then make the most of it.

What's there to see? he staffed his campaign with alt-right zealots, and now he's bringing some of them into the White House. That's a presidency that has failed before it even started.

What more do I need to see? how much he can get to spend on the boondoggle at the border? How will he mistreat Muslims? How he'll impede Latinos? How he'll wreck decades of free trade agreements? Where he'll get more American troops killed for little or no gain?

Maybe Americans plain don't know how to haggle. When bargaining, you go in knowing you wont' get everything you want, and the other side won't get everything they want. If both sides come in knowing this, a deal may be possible.

But now there'll be this person in the White House who thinks he hasn't won if he doesn't make the other side lose. The safest course in dealing with such a person is not to deal with them at all.

[q/] Maybe Americans plain don't know how to haggle. When bargaining, you go in knowing you wont' get everything you want, and the other side won't get everything they want. If both sides come in knowing this, a deal may be possible.

But now there'll be this person in the White House who thinks he hasn't won if he doesn't make the other side lose. The safest course in dealing with such a person is not to deal with them at all.

Quote: kenarman

You are making unknown and unproven assumptions there.

I'm taking the Orange Man at his word.

Quote:

Trump has thrived in an industry that survives on compromise and deals. There is no reason to believe that this background in successful negotiation won't continue in his presidency.

He was in and out of bankruptcies and courtrooms throughout his career. If he's made any money, it was through self-promotion, tacky reality TV, and outright fraud for which he's paid hush money.

Next we're going to see rampant conflicts of interest. Wanna bet? there have been wealthy presidents before. The two Bushes and Kennedy for instance. None used the office to further enrich themselves. Trump's already loudly proclaiming the conflict of interest laws don't apply to the president. A source in Argentina, unconfirmed as yet, reports Trump asked President Macri to fix a building permit he's having trouble with in Argentina.

Do you see nothing wrong in asking the head of state of another country to fix your business problems? There's a great deal of resentment, justified and not, against the US in Latin America. Wait and see what happens if the Orange Man starts treating the region's government officials as his lackeys.

He should understand he won an election. He wasn't named King.

What the heck is going on. Trump is
appointing blacks and women to
posts in his administration? I thought
he was an avid racist and sexist.
Nikki Haley for the UN, Betsy DeVos
as Sec of Ed, Ben Carson for HUD.

I don't get it, this doesn't sound like
what a sexist racist would do at all.
Could the Hillary people be wrong
about Trump?