EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 6778
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On February 06 2017 04:33 LegalLord wrote: Well the sooner we start figuring it out, the sooner we'll finish. Sarcasm? It's sarcasm, right? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 06 2017 05:28 On_Slaught wrote: As long as Bannon is there and Trump is giving him so much power and influence, no amount of moderates will help imo. Bannon is arguably the most dangerous person to reach power in this country in recent memory. Considering his obvious contempt for the system, he gets into the group of most dangerous ever maybe. This current electoral makeup, voting American public, is the most dangerous in recent history because it sent Trump to the White House while knowing Bannon was on that campaign team. Trump arguably signaled all of this long ago with campaign promises and exaggerations and campaign missteps before assuming office. The country arguably has contempt for the system too  | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 06 2017 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So the POTUS is vaguely suggesting something could happen to the judge that ruled against him... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828342202174668800 No, he's very clearly saying he plans to blame the judge and judicial branch if another act of terrorism occurs soon. Don't let your hatred of Trump trade intelligent criticism for mean-spirited, hyperpartisan attacks. | ||
TheNewEra
Germany3128 Posts
On February 06 2017 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So the POTUS is vaguely suggesting something could happen to the judge that ruled against him... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828342202174668800 Nah. He is not saying that sth. may happen to the judge but that everything happening from now on is the judge's fault. Let's not twist this statement | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24342 Posts
On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote: I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 06 2017 05:52 Danglars wrote: This current electoral makeup, voting American public, is the most dangerous in recent history because it sent Trump to the White House while knowing Bannon was on that campaign team. Trump arguably signaled all of this long ago with campaign promises and exaggerations and campaign missteps before assuming office. The country arguably has contempt for the system too indeed it does, and an inability to understand the long-term effects and implications; or at least that's what it does in aggregate. contempt without a plan or understanding of how to fix it is bad  | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18438 Posts
On February 06 2017 06:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So the POTUS is vaguely suggesting something could happen to the judge that ruled against him... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828342202174668800 Huh? No. He's saying: "blame the judge if there's a terrorist attack". It's wrong, and stupid, but not inviting violence against the judge. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
In theory he has larger population support, but a guy pops up (with a limited support) and lifts his decision. Trump is there to reflect people's will, again, in theory, when he decides on something it is most likely that he's there for those actions he's expected to take. These judges can bring down a whole government and defunction a model entirely, so there must be a common rail, right? If you put your rail's name interest of nation, you're hitler. If you name it rail of democracy, than why the hell Trump is there? Why would people vote for him to take conservative measures which will sooner or later clash with the idea of democracy. Why did the system produce him anyways? The idea of a democratic system can't bargain any of its values with governments, if they do, it's corrupt. But we're in a dirty world, what a dilemma! That rail was religion centuries ago, so everyone in church and castles were happy-ish. I think we need a better ground and motivation. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 06 2017 09:14 lastpuritan wrote: I think Trump is addressing the weakest points of democratic models right now. Not targeting the judge, but a model! What a revolutionist! In theory he has larger population support, but a guy pops up (with a limited support) and lifts his decision. Trump is there to reflect people's will, again, in theory, when he decides on something it is most likely that he's there for those actions he's expected to take. These judges can bring down a whole government and defunction a model entirely, so there must be a common rail, right? If you put your rail's name interest of nation, you're hitler. If you name it rail of democracy, than why the hell Trump is there? Why would people vote for him to take conservative measures which will sooner or later clash with the idea of democracy. Why did the system produce him anyways? The idea of a democratic system can't bargain any of its values with governments, if they do, it's corrupt. But we're in a dirty world, what a dilemma! i'm having trouble following what you're saying. it feels like you're trying to say something, but I can't follow it, and it feels somewhat incoherent. not sure what you keep using the word "rail" for, is it an autocorrect error? or like it came through an autotranslate program. can you try to rephrase what you're saying? | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
I didn't want to say anything. However, I believe major decisions like these should be put on a public vote, referendum is always a good idea. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Can you guys bring Obama back please? | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
On February 06 2017 09:14 lastpuritan wrote: I think Trump is addressing the weakest points of democratic models right now. Not targeting the judge, but a model! What a revolutionist! In theory he has larger population support, but a guy pops up (with a limited support) and lifts his decision. Trump is there to reflect people's will, again, in theory, when he decides on something it is most likely that he's there for those actions he's expected to take. These judges can bring down a whole government and defunction a model entirely, so there must be a common rail, right? If you put your rail's name interest of nation, you're hitler. If you name it rail of democracy, than why the hell Trump is there? Why would people vote for him to take conservative measures which will sooner or later clash with the idea of democracy. Why did the system produce him anyways? The idea of a democratic system can't bargain any of its values with governments, if they do, it's corrupt. But we're in a dirty world, what a dilemma! That rail was religion centuries ago, so everyone in church and castles were happy-ish. I think we need a better ground and motivation. This already has been the case in several other countries (amongst others Britain where the judges did interfere with brexit) The court is a stronghold of the establishment,all appointed judges. It would take forever to "break" that power. Expect the friction between judges and politics to increase as non establishment parties and figures increase their influence. The court is the next line of defence and a very strong one. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 06 2017 09:28 lastpuritan wrote: Imagine a railway a train moves on. Train is the state, railway is your regime. The way you take with your train is your law. Now, who decides your destination, your route? As Trump said, who's to blame? "Court system." I bet he and his supporters think what judge did was un-democratic because judge lifted his (as a President) decision, and actually can defunction his whole government. That's probably why he's attacking the court system. Not for this case, but for the actions he has in mind. I didn't want to say anything. However, I believe major decisions like these should be put on a public vote, referendum is always a good idea. having trouble following your analogy, it seems to breakdown, the way you take and your destination are kinda the same thing. unless you mean something weird with that. you also seemed to start using the analogy, then stop using it before it really made sense or added anything to the explanation. i'm not sure which major decision you're tlaking about, at any rate, referendum is not always a good idea. referenda are oftne bad ideas actually. While certain major decisions should be referenda to get the necessary social buy-in, referenda aren't a good way to decide anything involving complicated questions of fact due to information limits, unless other methods are unuseable. referenda often in practice end up tools of special interests just as much as other methods of decision-making. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
Interesting article,i am inclined to think that china will make the first move. Either politically or by occupying some irrelevant islands. Just to make a statement and draw a line to what it will accept. It would be a move with relatively low risk,call Americas bluff with something insignificant. The estimates for the strength of china,s military that you can see in the charts a bit lower seems very low and I would not be surprised if this underestimates the real force by a factor 2-4. Not to mention the fact that china is a nuclear power. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
On February 06 2017 09:41 zlefin wrote: having trouble following your analogy, it seems to breakdown, the way you take and your destination are kinda the same thing. unless you mean something weird with that. you also seemed to start using the analogy, then stop using it before it really made sense or added anything to the explanation. i'm not sure which major decision you're tlaking about, at any rate, referendum is not always a good idea. referenda are oftne bad ideas actually. While certain major decisions should be referenda to get the necessary social buy-in, referenda aren't a good way to decide anything involving complicated questions of fact due to information limits, unless other methods are unuseable. referenda often in practice end up tools of special interests just as much as other methods of decision-making. There are multiple ways to reach a destination, is that new to you? Well, we part WAYS on referendum. 51% is always > 49% no matter what. But that's just my personal opinion, not gonna force it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 06 2017 09:55 lastpuritan wrote: There are multiple ways to reach a destination, is that new to you? Well, we part WAYS on referendum. 51% is always > 49% no matter what. But that's just my personal opinion, not gonna force it. well, the way you take and your route are the same thing, and you used destination in a way that seemed like you were using it to refer to the same thing as your route. mostly I don't see the analogy adding any explanatory power, mostly it seems to just add confusion. 51% as a number is higher than 49% as a number. it does not mean 51% thinking something is the better choice means it should be that way. that's just wrong, and vastly documented to be so. | ||
| ||
