commies will be commies
Let's look at the free speech issue...Dictators before taking away guns do one thing first - they suppress free speech.
They degrade any watchdog organization by calling them liars.
They complain about free speech and ask that people stand at attention when they talk.
They set up their own news network that only produces favorable news on them.
Then they play one sub population against another and yell about nationalism and how to make their country great is to get rid of all interlopers.
This is the pattern of Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao....
Dictators before taking away guns do one thing first - they suppress free speech.
They degrade any watchdog organization by calling them liars.
They complain about free speech and ask that people stand at attention when they talk.
They set up their own news network that only produces favorable news on them.
Then they play one sub population against another and yell about nationalism and how to make their country great is to get rid of all interlopers.
This is the pattern of Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mao....
Let's look at the free speech issue...
Can you give an example of when Trump suppressed free speech?
[snip]
Dictators and Trump and everyone else COMPLAIN about bad press. They favor media that is favorable to them.
That's quite different from actually suppressing free speech.
Let's look at the free speech issue...
Can you give an example of when Trump suppressed free speech? Have you turned on CNN, MSNBC, or read the NYT or WaPo? The cases of free speech being suppressed that I can give examples of are the liberal Antifa movement, SUCCESSFULLY shutting down conservative speakers. On college campuses, safe spaces are set up to "protect" people from speech they find objectionable. We've argued here about how it's supposedly ok to suppress free speech if someone thinks it's "intolerant". That suppression is not Trump, that's "progressivism".
Dictators and Trump and everyone else COMPLAIN about bad press. They favor media that is favorable to them.
That's quite different from actually suppressing free speech.
Agree with this 100% He's also the ultimate troll.getting personal is cheap, demeaning, disingenuous unlike any other POTUS and, frankly, coming from someone with the greatest amount of power in this country, frankly very concerning...
funny how you make so many blanket statements and try to lump those who don't believe in your opinion as having the same opinion. this is usually a sign of a weak argument.
im a New Yorker, and I can definitively state that I never trusted nor liked Trump (tho I am not a Democrat per se). and "every major news organizations" sure did critique Clinton hard for her many errors.
the problem that you blithely ignore is that, unlike any other political figure, he seeks to discredit and belittle those who he thinks critiques him. Reagan never did that. Neither did Bushes, McCain, Romney, Ryan, OConnell, Krauthammer, ... only guys like Bannon, North,
maybe Palin, but then again....
On Meet the Press yesterday, Chuck Todd called Trump a "liar" multiple times. He quickly went through a list of things Trump said that he called lies. They were mostly debatable things but the one I remember was "Obama lost Crimea", which was labeled a bald faced LIE by Chuck. Then he got his "expert" panel of reporters together to talk about lying.Nice quotation marks around "LIES"
As the press has called Trump a liar 2,000 times over the past 6 months, here's what's happened to his approval ratings. Black line:On Meet the Press yesterday, Chuck Todd called Trump a "liar" multiple times.
so you're saying its better to lie to make yourself look good and convince others that others are lying, than to tell the truth?
try that in school. it will get you far - to the principal's office.
or he can be a real man and tell the truth.
There are exaggerations, lies, and then there are LIES. Eg. "The crowd of people that came to see me was the biggest EVER in human history" is an exaggeration. "I didn't have sex with that woman" (to cover up an affair) is a lie about a personal matter that is none of our business.so you're saying its better to lie to make yourself look good and convince others that others are lying, than to tell the truth?
try that in school. it will get you far - to the principal's office.
or he can be a real man and tell the truth.
There are exaggerations, lies, and then there are LIES. Eg. "The crowd of people that came to see me was the biggest EVER in human history" is an exaggeration. "I didn't have sex with that woman" (to cover up an affair) is a lie about a personal matter that is none of our business.
Calling someone a LIAR repeatedly is really awful and immature.
I think all these attacks are due to the fact that Trump's message of "MAGA" is hard to counter.
MAGA to me means that success ("winning" as Trump would say) is admired rather than frowned upon. I think that is aspirational as opposed to "Why bother starting a business because you didn't build that". And the shame that some people feel about being American - apology tour, "for the first time I am proud", etc, it's just not what I want for the country. It may be your vision, it's not mine.and if you believe in MAGA, then you believe that America sucks right now,. when was it great, 50 years ago??? 30? ask any non-white - it sure sucked back then especially in the deep south.
if you think America is and has been the greatest country in the world bar none, then MAGA never "happened" because we are GREAT RIGHT NOW, before Trump, and not some remote past.
sorry, but i think the latter is true.
I do see it and pretty much agree with everything you're saying. People are angry and afraid and are reacting to it. It doesn't change the fact that Harvey Weinstein is no longer mingling with politicians. Minority Americans are doing well. I can't argue that people are concerned. But looking at the results, I think they shouldn't be any more afraid than with a more suave and PC president who says all the right things.I’ve always been proud to be an American and oft bothered I haven’t contributed more. I would have butbonespurs20/400 vision kept me out.
These new movements are not rising because of trump - they are riding due to trump. Because Americans are afraid their voices will be taken away. Afraid because he does not deny the alt-right and in fact encourages their racist views, all while espousing derogatory views of others based on race and heritage. Those huge marches last year were not in celebration of trump politics.
If you don’t see that... man, where did you get those rose colored glasses???
Trump is certainly giving our democracy a test. we will see how strong our form of government is. he is challenging the separation of powers. this could end very well for america...... or very poorly.
as far as the european parliamentary system? bring it on. id love to see it happen. more votes =====> you get to lead. leaders change when they dont have the support of the people. no set term limits. much more nimble and functional. much easier to respond quickly to a crisis. here? no so much.
MAGA to me means that success ("winning" as Trump would say) is admired rather than frowned upon. I think that is aspirational as opposed to "Why bother starting a business because you didn't build that". And the shame that some people feel about being American - apology tour, "for the first time I am proud", etc, it's just not what I want for the country. It may be your vision, it's not mine.
That to me is the main thing. I don't see anyone talking about going back to discriminatory racial policies. I see the "Me Too" movement with Trump, no one before him. So for those who were terrified MAGA meant going back to slavery, I mean, let's be real here. It's not happening, even a little. I haven't seen any more riots in Ferguson or Baltimore and I don't see any reason to think racial relations are declining.
You guys should prepare yourselves because another SC justice would really change the country for the long term. That is to say, the constitution will be more literally interpreted and not "living and breathing" and subject to whatever hormones are circulating in the court at the time...
ahahahahaha... functional and nimble governments like european parliaments? parliamentary republics such as Italy and Greece, the parliament of Croatia? some of the worst corruption and debt on the planet. hahahaha....... ahhhh ok, wiping the tears away.
ok keep going...
I think ours has the potential to work better, its just more dependent on who is in the White House. This probably has been getting worse over time as the Executive Branch gains more and more power. Curtail that (and choose better Presidents) and I think we're better. Keep expanding its power and keep electing the people we have been, and we're likely to not be.nice of you to join the debate. 200 posts in.
croatia? maybe bring in equatorial guinea while you are at it.
no government is perfect, but the parliamentary systems function better, IMHO.
I think ours has the potential to work better, its just more dependent on who is in the White House. This probably has been getting worse over time as the Executive Branch gains more and more power. Curtail that (and choose better Presidents) and I think we're better. Keep expanding its power and keep electing the people we have been, and we're likely to not be.
I definitely disagree with your opinion about the Senate. I think we really do have the best of both worlds here where one chamber is based on population while the other isn't. One could make the argument that the balance of power between the House and Senate might be a little off, but there's something just wrong about LA county having more of a say than the smallest 11 states (based on 2015 population).well said.
however, wyoming should not have as much say in the senate as california.
our electoral college system blows.
there should be uniformity in regard to federal election laws, rather than this state-by-state mayhem.
but im with you in regards to the executive branch. we have proven time and time again that we elect bozos, both at the state and federal level
I definitely disagree with your opinion about the Senate. I think we really do have the best of both worlds here where one chamber is based on population while the other isn't. One could make the argument that the balance of power between the House and Senate might be a little off, but there's something just wrong about LA county having more of a say than the smallest 11 states (based on 2015 population).
I don't mind the electoral college all said. Might be nice if it weren't a winner-take-all system, but we make that change and I think we're OK. That way the entire election isn't based on either 4 states (like now) or 4 metro areas (like it would be without the College).
I don't know enough about general election laws to comment on that.
Pretty sure abortion is decided by the Courts.arbitrary latitude and longitude lines shouldnt determine if abortion is legal, what our taxes should be, etc. right now, joe scho in wyoming has more of a say in our democracy than joe schmo in LA. not fair. it should ALL be based on population. including the general election. seems pretty stupid to me that in 2 out of the last 5 elections, they candidate with the most votes didnt win.
i understand your argument about urban vs. rural, but farmers shouldnt count more than subway employees.
Pretty sure abortion is decided by the Courts.
Problem with being all population based is that essentially means that this disenfranchises a huge number of Americans. 8 states would control the entire government using current numbers. At least now everyone is represented, if not equally (in only 1 of the 2 chambers, the other chamber is entirely population based). Under your plan 42 states would have absolutely no voice if the largest 8 decided to act together. Better slightly unequal representation than none, and again the unequal part is only in 1 chamber, or 50% of 1/3rd of the government.
There was an interesting article a few months back that basically redivided the country based on general cultural aspects that I thought was quite interesting. Might be preferable than "arbitrary latitude and longitude".
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that score then.gigantic tracts of land, home only to bears and insects and a few hundred thousand people shouldnt have 2 senators.
people are disproportionately moving to the cities because that is where the jobs are in a 21st century economy. if 8 states can control the government, that is because it is the home to so many americans. your thinking, like nay aspects of the constitution is outdated.
do you have the link to the article? im trying to do anything today other than see patients.
gigantic tracts of land, home only to bears and insects and a few hundred thousand people shouldnt have 2 senators.
people are disproportionately moving to the cities because that is where the jobs are in a 21st century economy. if 8 states can control the government, that is because it is the home to so many americans. your thinking, like nay aspects of the constitution is outdated.
do you have the link to the article? im trying to do anything today other than see patients.
those urban folks ARE represented.....by their local and state govt's. The constitution is not outdated and the founding fathers thought about high density areas just like in Europe when they wrote the constitution.
I don't hear you debating at all. Only complaining...enough with straw-man arguments.
such a useless debating tool.
you create an impossible scenario just to shoot it down. bringing back slavery? what are you even saying? elizabeth warren has nothing to do with this.
I don't know if any changes in the law/constitution will make people agree any more than they do. Or be any less upset.maybe not outdated, but can always use some updates....ie 12th amendment
I don't know if any changes in the law/constitution will make people agree any more than they do. Or be any less upset.
I actually think we have a great system but we've gotten spoiled so we magnify every little disagreement. Like we're freaking out over wedding cakes...
Bunch of dorks.
Dont like the law, change it. Process clearly outlined. Just takes a lot of like minded people.
Don't need the President to make amendments - in fact I'm pretty sure he's not involved in that process at all.who are the dorks? us? if you mean us, then you have no disagreement there.
if you mean congress, then you also have no disagreement.
unfortunately, it takes, what 2/3 or 60% like minded people and a president who also agrees. we cant even seem to agree that the sky is blue these days
another straw man argument. we are not freaking out about wedding cakes,
Don't need the President to make amendments - in fact I'm pretty sure he's not involved in that process at all.
Nope, can be done entirely by the states. If 2/3rd of state legislatures decide they want a Constitutional Convention, Congress has to make it happen. The Convention's proposed amendments can become part of the Constitution if 3/4ths of the states agree.this is correct. 2/3 of both houses. good luck with that.
this is correct. 2/3 of both houses. good luck with that.
Nope, can be done entirely by the states. If 2/3rd of state legislatures decide they want a Constitutional Convention, Congress has to make it happen. The Convention's proposed amendments can become part of the Constitution if 3/4ths of the states agree.
Also interestingly, you apparently can't make an amendment that will take away equal representation in the Senate unless the states that are going to lose that agree to it. So barring an entirely new Constitution, you can't take away equal suffrage in the Senate. I was not aware of this until just now. I guess you could do away with Article 5 altogether and then change the Senate, but I'm not sure if that's even possible. That would absolutely need a Supreme Court ruling.
Still very hard to manage which is kind of the point.
Maybe for you guys, my team controls exactly 2/3rd of the state legislatures.i didnt include the state legislative angle because that is pretty much a pipe dream.
i agree it should be hard -- but not this hard. we are stuck with this quagmire
another straw man argument. we are not freaking out about wedding cakes, we are freaking out about the fabric of our democracy. we are freaking out because our president has been bought and/or blackmailed by russia. sort of a different argument.
Maybe for you guys, my team controls exactly 2/3rd of the state legislatures.
I don't think we are stuck. The country has done fairly well with this exact system for a long time. Its been within the last 20-ish years that things have gotten so bad. I mean, you can talk to some of the older Senators and they were still in the Senate at a time when things weren't this bad.
still convinced the President is colluding with Russia? Even after the lead "I'm with her" FBI investigator was colluding with other heads of the FBI to exonerate Hillary, stated he had insurance to prevent him from being elected, and when he was elected, to then impeach him after getting a special prosecutor on him? If only you had some texts of some kind making this picture clear?