|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 04 2016 23:23 doc_biceps wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don't think you realize how damaging for people an extreme government can be.
On a geopolitical level it would probably be a disaster, but the real issue is every day life for americans. And it starts with a ultra right wing supreme court he has promised. Abortion, social care, taxation, affordable education, racial tensions. Those things are very real, and a fucking big deal for every american.
Hillary will probably carry on Obama's work. Incremental change for the better. That's what I expect from a president.
Politics is not a game. Would be great if more people understood that. But are those changes made my the president himself or by the senate and the other people working in/for the government?
There are plenty of things the president can do all on their own. Like deport all 11 million illegal immigrants in the 2 years like Trump promises. That is around 400K people being rounded up and deported per month. I don't even know what that looks like and I don't want to know.
|
On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed.
I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president.
Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them?
|
On August 04 2016 23:37 Plansix wrote:
There are plenty of things the president can do all on their own. Like deport all 11 million illegal immigrants in the 2 years like Trump promises. That is around 400K people being rounded up and deported per month. I don't even know what that looks like and I don't want to know.
How can he do that? What is (or could be) a legal base? (I'm not doubting what you say, I just would like to have some background information  )
|
United States43214 Posts
On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ?
Nothing, which is a totally reasonable tactic after a long period of domination by one party. The Labour Party pulled it off in the UK really well in the late 90s. There was a perception that Labour were bad on the economy and would raise taxes so in the run up to the '97 election Labour just announced that the Conservative tax and spending plans were fine and that they would be using those. At which point the Conservatives are forced to somehow win against their own plans as "the issues" or win on name recognition alone while being unpopular and associated with everything that had gone wrong for the past two decades.
Shamelessly stealing ground from the winning party is a very viable tactic.
|
On August 04 2016 23:40 doc_biceps wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:37 Plansix wrote:
There are plenty of things the president can do all on their own. Like deport all 11 million illegal immigrants in the 2 years like Trump promises. That is around 400K people being rounded up and deported per month. I don't even know what that looks like and I don't want to know. How can he do that? What is (or could be) a legal base? (I'm not doubting what you say, I just would like to have some background information )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/qpDnY/3859485604.png)
|
On August 04 2016 23:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ? Nothing, which is a totally reasonable tactic after a long period of domination by one party. The Labour Party pulled it off in the UK really well in the late 90s. There was a perception that Labour were bad on the economy and would raise taxes so in the run up to the '97 election Labour just announced that the Conservative tax and spending plans were fine and that they would be using those. At which point the Conservatives are forced to somehow win against their own plans as "the issues" or win on name recognition alone while being unpopular and associated with everything that had gone wrong for the past two decades. Shamelessly stealing ground from the winning party is a very viable tactic.
No shame in admitting that someone else's plan is good. "Yeah, they have that one good thing, but we have 2 more things that are great, vote for us!"
|
On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them?
I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right?
On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand).
Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing.
|
I don't really think Hillary is going to make things better - she has a long history of bungling the projects that she was deeply involved in. But she won't do anything bold or particularly insane, which is to say that she will basically hold the line on Obama's issues and do a somewhat worse job of it all. Which isn't really what I would like in a president, but it's not enough to riot and demand a radical change either.
|
On August 04 2016 23:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ? Nothing, which is a totally reasonable tactic after a long period of domination by one party. The Labour Party pulled it off in the UK really well in the late 90s. There was a perception that Labour were bad on the economy and would raise taxes so in the run up to the '97 election Labour just announced that the Conservative tax and spending plans were fine and that they would be using those. At which point the Conservatives are forced to somehow win against their own plans as "the issues" or win on name recognition alone while being unpopular and associated with everything that had gone wrong for the past two decades. Shamelessly stealing ground from the winning party is a very viable tactic.
Have you read Clinton's platform, and do you know about "moderate republican"'s (we talk Paul Ryan, for example?) programs?
I mean, taxation, healthcare, affordable education, environment... Those are areas in which Clinton's platform and most of her positions in the past are 180° opposite of a Paul Ryan or even a Kasich.
|
I disagree that there's no real difference between a reasonable Republican party and Hillary. They still hold differing views on a lot of issues.
|
On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing.
Especially because germany wants to export its goods to the US. If trump really tries to strengthen the internal US industry and fight against foreign industries (what he said about china for example) then germany is going to be suffer from that. Cant really tell how bad but every little bit counts.
|
On August 04 2016 23:46 LegalLord wrote:
I don't really think Hillary is going to make things better - she has a long history of bungling the projects that she was deeply involved in. But she won't do anything bold or particularly insane, which is to say that she will basically hold the line on Obama's issues and do a somewhat worse job of it all. Which isn't really what I would like in a president, but it's not enough to riot and demand a radical change either.
this is pretty much where the vast majority of hillary "supporters" lie
maybe if the republican party hadnt spent so much time pandering to their crazyreligious base on social control and rather pushed them towards libertarian memes, gary johnson couldve been their candidate in an alternate universe, who knows
but theres carsons and cruzes and rubios and the one trump to rule them all...
|
On August 04 2016 23:40 doc_biceps wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:37 Plansix wrote:
There are plenty of things the president can do all on their own. Like deport all 11 million illegal immigrants in the 2 years like Trump promises. That is around 400K people being rounded up and deported per month. I don't even know what that looks like and I don't want to know. How can he do that? What is (or could be) a legal base? (I'm not doubting what you say, I just would like to have some background information )
The agency that controls immigration and how aggressive we are with deportation is part of the executive branch. He would also have almost complete control of the FBI, CIA and NSA. And the armed services. The EPA. The FDA. All of these are part of the executive branch and the president is in charge of that.
The only parts congress controls are their funding, which gives them some power. But not a lot.
|
United States43214 Posts
On August 04 2016 21:49 Elroi wrote:Yeah well, racism is becoming more and more commonplace. I saw a mod here on tl make this racist comment in a discussion about gun control a couple of weeks ago: Show nested quote +i prefer the remove kebab route. aint gonna give up my guns when they're around Almost noone in the thread, which was about a presumed terrorist attack, even reacted...
Pretty sure he's not a mod.
|
On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right?
On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand).
Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing.
People voted for Hitler because they wanted the things he promised ("Make Germany great again!"). Example: The nazis created tons of jobs for "arians" by boosting weapon industry and putting "non-arian" people out of jobs. That must have been pretty good for the "arians" who voted for them. Of course it wasn't good for the rest of the people, but they probably didn't vote for him in the first place. (This is super complex and I actually didn't want to follow your Trump-Hitler comparison, because comparing anything with the 3rd Reich automatically goes into the wrong direction, so pls dont respond to this in any way ).
The issue is a key problematic of a democracy: allowing people to vote even if the thing they vote for might be bad in the end.
Yes, I will be affected by American Government decisions but I really believe that those decisions are more influenced by the "government" which is not soley the president.
|
Thank you!
But the article also states the congress and court can overthrow does orders. But yes, I can see that he has a lot of power!
|
On August 04 2016 23:58 doc_biceps wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right?
On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand).
Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. People voted for Hitler because they wanted the things he promised ("Make Germany great again!"). Example: The nazis created tons of jobs for "arians" by boosting weapon industry and putting "non-arian" people out of jobs. That must have been pretty good for the "arians" who voted for them. Of course it wasn't good for the rest of the people, but they probably didn't vote for him in the first place. (This is super complex and I actually didn't want to follow your Trump-Hitler comparison, because comparing anything with the 3rd Reich automatically goes into the wrong direction, so pls dont respond to this in any way ). The issue is a key problematic of a democracy: allowing people to vote even if the thing they vote for might be bad in the end. Yes, I will be affected by American Government decisions but I really believe that those decisions are more influenced by the "government" which is not soley the president.
With respect to foreign countries I would really think the executive branch on its own is doing the most influencing.
|
On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing.
Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population.
|
On August 05 2016 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 04 2016 23:38 doc_biceps wrote:On August 04 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, if you think it all doesn't matter, take Obama presidency, and Bush presidency, and compare.
I can guarantee you that if Gore had won in 2000, the world and the US would be a much, much better place today.
Of course we are talking teams, not one individual, but that's not really good news because while Clinton's team is basically the same bunch that worked for Obama, Trump's team seems to be made of lunatics who were probably not even interviewed. I don't think it doesn't matter, I just think it matters less then what is promoted. But thats probably due to my missing understanding of how the voting-system in the US is so heavily focused on the soon to be president. Additionally the points you mentioned earlier (taxation etc) aren't secrets, it is part of the campaign and the program of the party. If the people vote for it, isn't it what they want, because they think it is the best for them? I don't follow your logic. People voted for Hitler, they thought it was good for them and it wasn't. Right? On top of that I guess you have your opinion, so knowing that Trump promises a horrifying program, why do you hope he will win? (That is unless you think his program is great, then I understand). Finally, as a german citizen, you will be affected by American government decisions. If America hadn't recovered fairly well from the economic crisis, we would be much much worse off in Europe right now. Considering both Trump's foreign policy and economic program is a cluster fuck of bad ideas and ignorance, you can be more or less certain that Germany will be better of with anyone else who kind of has a clue about what they are doing. Hitler won because there were a lot of parties in the running. Having more than two parties means that you're guaranteed that the minority of the population gets to dictate to the majority of the population.
Seems like you have it backwards.
Having more than two parties with a proportional electoral system means a minority will never have power unless they compromise with enough other minorities that they can collectively represent more than 50% of the (voting) population.
Having two parties means that two minority groups provide the only feasible choices for the entire voting population.
(Also any talk of Hitler and democracy is moot because he never won any election)
|
Canada11369 Posts
On August 04 2016 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 23:41 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On August 04 2016 08:43 LegalLord wrote:
At this rate the Democratic Party has a solid chance of taking back Congress. I'm really hoping the Republican Party finds a way to reform soon, because I really don't like the Dems much and I wish there was another choice that is at least somewhat reasonable. What's the difference between a reasonable republican party and Hillary ? Nothing, which is a totally reasonable tactic after a long period of domination by one party. The Labour Party pulled it off in the UK really well in the late 90s. There was a perception that Labour were bad on the economy and would raise taxes so in the run up to the '97 election Labour just announced that the Conservative tax and spending plans were fine and that they would be using those. At which point the Conservatives are forced to somehow win against their own plans as "the issues" or win on name recognition alone while being unpopular and associated with everything that had gone wrong for the past two decades. Shamelessly stealing ground from the winning party is a very viable tactic. Have you read Clinton's platform, and do you know about "moderate republican"'s (we talk Paul Ryan, for example?) programs? I mean, taxation, healthcare, affordable education, environment... Those are areas in which Clinton's platform and most of her positions in the past are 180° opposite of a Paul Ryan or even a Kasich.
Paul Ryan is moderate in temperment, but I'm pretty sure he's not moderate politically. If I remember correctly, he was brought on as Romney's running mate to win over the Tea Party, who are themselves not at all moderate. At the time, he was considered the most conservative VP pick (Nate Silver figured since 1900.) Now, he wasn't ideologically pure enough for them, so he has since been spit out. But I don't think that makes him swing to right of centre- only that he's a practical man and moderate in temperament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
