The Awesomeness of Trump

Jeez, is this thread still going?!

17 pages later and we haven't yet fixed democracy and brought about world peace?

C'mon guys, extract the digit! :laugh:

Br. John wrote: In that case why not give every state one vote? Then they are all equal. What we have is low population states with more power than high population states.

This is kind of what we do in the UK. In that each constituency gets to elect one representative, that in turn provides the house majority, who then form the government.

I'll be honest, I don't fully understand the American democratic model, but the bits I do know about make no sense. Why elect a President directly, based on their campaign promises when you can then elect a house that won't let them keep those promises? Why give them the ability to execute executive orders when there is a chance they'll issue one that is potentially unconstitutional? Heck, why have a written constitution at all? ( :laugh: sorry, had to get that last one in).

Worst of all though, why announce the popular vote?! It doesn't change the outcome, it just allows people to make the 'This is isn't the president we voted for!' argument. Which is a completely flawed by the way.

Yes, that is the president that you voted for. You willingly engaged in a democratic model, knowing full well that this kind of thing could happen, and only began to complain about it when it resulted in your candidate losing.

For the record, I would have probably have voted for Hillary. I'm not that keen on Trump. But I also don't think he's anywhere near as bad as the Press make out. It's a bit like what happened with Jeremy Corbyn over here. (I happen to strongly disagree with Corbyn, but he's not as bad as the press make out)

At the end of the day, Trump IS the democratically elected leader. Sure, he's not necessarily the best president, but I don't think he's the worst either.

I'm thinking I'm agreeing with Kyrin on this one. Though I don't agree with a lot of her opinions (though they're no more bias than those that are disagreeing with her), I do agree with a lot of the arguments she's made.

Lykeios wrote: It IS personal.

As a curiosity, over the last 230 days that Trump has been in office, what has he done that has directly effected you or a loved one? Either in a positive or negative way?

Brick wrote: Jeez, is this thread still going?!

17 pages later and we haven't yet fixed democracy and brought about world peace?

C'mon guys, extract the digit! :laugh:

Br. John wrote: In that case why not give every state one vote? Then they are all equal. What we have is low population states with more power than high population states.

This is kind of what we do in the UK. In that each constituency gets to elect one representative, that in turn provides the house majority, who then form the government.

I'll be honest, I don't fully understand the American democratic model, but the bits I do know about make no sense. Why elect a President directly, based on their campaign promises when you can then elect a house that won't let them keep those promises? Why give them the ability to execute executive orders when there is a chance they'll issue one that is potentially unconstitutional? Heck, why have a written constitution at all? ( :laugh: sorry, had to get that last one in).

Worst of all though, why announce the popular vote?! It doesn't change the outcome, it just allows people to make the 'This is isn't the president we voted for!' argument. Which is a completely flawed by the way.

Yes, that is the president that you voted for. You willingly engaged in a democratic model, knowing full well that this kind of thing could happen, and only began to complain about it when it resulted in your candidate losing.

For the record, I would have probably have voted for Hillary. I'm not that keen on Trump. But I also don't think he's anywhere near as bad as the Press make out. It's a bit like what happened with Jeremy Corbyn over here. (I happen to strongly disagree with Corbyn, but he's not as bad as the press make out)

At the end of the day, Trump IS the democratically elected leader. Sure, he's not necessarily the best president, but I don't think he's the worst either.

I'm thinking I'm agreeing with Kyrin on this one. Though I don't agree with a lot of her opinions (though they're no more bias than those that are disagreeing with her), I do agree with a lot of the arguments she's made.

Trust me, he's the worst. Even WITH a democratically elected majority he can't get anything done. And presidents CAN'T inact an executive order that violates the constitution. If they do they will immediately be taken up in the Supreme Court which will then determine whether it was lawful or not. The problem with that is, the Supreme Court depends on the executive branch to enforce their rulings. So technically a president could enforce (or not enforce a Supreme Court ruling, that happened with Andrew Jackson), an unconstitutional executive order, but ideally he would be immediately censured and the executive order repealed.

Lykeios wrote: Trust me, he's the worst.

Opinion, won't argue with it.

Lykeios wrote: Even WITH a democratically elected majority he can't get anything done.

I didn't state that the elected house had to be an opposition party. Simply observing what appears to be a massive fundamental flaw in the system if you're expected to elect someone based on promises they cannot keep.

Lykeios wrote: And presidents CAN'T inact an executive order that violates the constitution. If they do they will immediately be taken up in the Supreme Court which will then determine whether it was lawful or not. The problem with that is, the Supreme Court depends on the executive branch to enforce their rulings. So technically a president could enforce an unconstitutional executive order, but ideally he would be immediately censured and the executive order repealed.

You contradict yourself here mate. What I'm getting from this is that, it is possible, just difficult?

Donald Trump, Mitch McConnel, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborugh, Stephanie Miller, Rush Limbaugh, Robert Jeffress, Steve Bannon, David Corn...these are just a few of the people who really bother me when it comes to moving forward in this country. You have Trump and Shumer and Hannity and Scarborough and Limbaugh and Bannon just to name a select popular few who are so elitist and self-centered I wonder if they really know or even care what the average family goes through to pay their bills and put food on the table. There is the religious right, or evangelicals if you will, that dance around the fact that Mr. Trump has been married three times and likes to grab women in the genitals. But, all Paula White can say is that she believes the president was put here to take out Kim Jong Un. Pelosi, Miller, Corn are just as guilty. They MAY not be elitist, but they also have no clue of the frustrations of MOST American families.

We have been so programmed for “fast food news” in this country. I would actually be astonished to learn that people turn on the boob tube and watch a few minutes of Newsmax or Free Speech TV or Fox News or MSNBC or CNN...or even read Breitbart or Mother Jones. Just like the country, our news and even our music is SEGREGATED.

I wasn’t a big fan of Barack Obama. He felt like an elitist. I was considering voting for John McCain until he chose the Osama Bin Laden of soccer moms as his running mate. And, in 2012 I could not in good conscience vote for Mitt Romney. At least McCain had SOME common sense.

My saving grace has been the kids I teach guitar to. They actually listen to Kendrick Lamar and Bruno Mars and Gary Clark Jr. and Eric Church and Rolling Stones and NWA. They want to learn how to play ‘Uptown Funk’ and ‘Gimme Shelter’ and ‘London Calling’. Maybe there’s hope for this world yet. Perhaps when we can all be a little less apolitical and actually LISTEN to folks of a different point of view. Have we all become like our president...self-centered idiots?

I’ll end this with a quote from a song from a dude from New Jersey…

“Grab your gun son and shoot your shot. Everybody wants to be the man at the top...”

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:
By this logic black votes should count as double and Asian votes triple?

No?

The electoral college favors geographic regions just so that smaller populations have a megaphone.

It assumes that people in these elevated regions have completely different needs that would never be met by a president chosen by "city-folk". Maybe there was a time when this was true, but it isn't now. It's time for the electoral college to go so that each person gets one vote.

Sorry but your wrong. Today we need this system even more than in the past. And I have no idea how you took my statement and construed it to say that minorities votes should count more??

What's wrong?

You said, "But the electoral college allows wyoming to have the same, equal voice in voting and so one group can never steamroller another in this way."

Would it not be fair to say that black people are a minority?

Would it not be fair to say that black voters could be steamrolled by white voters?

Therefore, if you're weighing votes to keep this from happening, by 'that' logic, black votes should count more than white votes.

Of course, I'm not supporting this idea. I think it's silly. The electoral college is basically boosting the votes of states with smaller populations, correct?

Are these places equally populated by all racial/ethnic groups?

If the answer is no, then what you're also doing is giving a bigger voice to one group (white men) who are already a majority, by boosting their votes in areas with less population.

This assumes that "city-folk" or people in more densely populated areas all want the same things vs people in sparsely populated areas even though the economic contributions of these states are nowhere near the same.

Why is it not fair enough that smaller states have equal representation in Congress? I think we all understand the whole "United States" thing, but the point some are making is that things have changed and the electoral college isn't as necessary as it once was. Republicans are somehow allowed to gerrymander votes but so let's stop pretending that equal voting is something sacred. It's not. What we need is a system that treats each voter, each American, fairly. But fairness to one side, as it does in my example, can create inequity on another. A more simple solution would be going by the popular vote.

Arisaig wrote:

ZealotX wrote: Whether Trump is awesome or not depends on several key factors:

1. your level of education
2. whether you believe everything Trump says
3. whether you actually follow politics
4. whether you hate the government
5. whether you believe in conspiracy theories
6. whether you are racist or sexist
7. whether you think that Trump cares about you instead of wanting the power of the office to benefit himself
8. whether your name is Donald, Jr., Eric, Baron, Ivanka or (sometimes) Jared
9. whether you don't care if your president is respected around the world or you're an isolationist
10. whether you like Russia.

Are you saying stupid people think Trump is awesome... Or smart people think Trump is awesome? Thays a rather big assumption either way.

I don't like Trump and I follow politics. I have friends that don't like Trump and don't follow politics. Please explain.

You don't need to be racist or sexist to think Trump is awesome. Just saying. Women voted for Trump too, and so did many minorities.

Yes, his kids like him. Duh. It's a respect your father thing.

I didn't say at all. That was the point. I left it up to the reader to fill in the presumptions. I have my own beliefs, yes of course. But to imply one's opinions either way would be problematic.

We would all like to think x,y,z of each other and why people voted for Trump, or voted against Hillary. I personally voted for Jill Stein. The truth is that we would all like some easy answer for "why Trump" and there is no simple answer. People voted for him because they wanted different things and thought he was the right "tool" for the job. And people voted against him because they wanted different things and thought he was wrong for the job.

I saw women interviewed that basically didn't want to vote for a female president. Why? Conservative values? The bible?

Yes, a lot of conspiracy theorists would vote Trump because they don't trust the government. But the funny thing about that is, Alex Jones hasn't created any real credibility for himself. His credibility is what is assumed by his shared opposition to the government and his seemingly endless ability to "uncover the truth". People seem to turn off their critical thinking when someone agrees with them. It's harder to be critical in that case. And ultimately, I think this is why Trump won.

Trump attacked everything that the majority of the people (combination of different groups) don't like and don't trust about their government. He didn't tell anyone his plans because he had none. He didn't present solutions for everything because he didn't have any real solutions. He simply identified enough problems to make people nod in agreement. And then they turned off their critical thinking and assumed that he was right about everything. A wall? Cartels are already building tunnels. He himself said that a person could just use a rope to get over. So yes, there's an element of simplicity where many people who aren't that smart would think building a wall was a good solution and trusted him that Mexico would pay for it. Smart people already knew that Mexico would never pay for it and even if we raised tariffs they could do the same. It's not going to happen.

Trump gave people enough to make himself popular. He manipulated people's psychological interests and leveraged their fears. No one here can tell me exactly how Trump is going to fix the economy other than the standard conservative talking points because they assume he is a conservative. Trump is whatever Trump needs to be to get the power he seeks. And he'll use that power to benefit his own businesses. Will it benefit others? Sure, but regulations aren't there to penalize rich people. They exist to protect the public. Without regulations we could not survive capitalism. They balance personal gain against the greater good. If one doesn't care about the greater good then regulations will be evil to them. If one cares about the greater good it is the absence of these regulations that is evil to them. What Trump does, and what other republicans do, is try to link the good of the rich with the good of the poor. If the rich are successful then they'll create more jobs. If they're not creating enough jobs then blame your inability to find a good job on black people and brown people. All Trump has to do is echo what all these people think is wrong and they will substitute the identification of the problem for credibility and competence.

What Donald Trump fundamentally lacks is the ability to make logical decisions involving indirect consequences. He appears, to me, to be unable to understand the decision tree and how his decisions can branch off further down the line. When someone says Trump is awesome, what goes through my mind is that it really isn't Trump that they think is awesome, because they really don't know him and are only hoping that he can fix things because he keeps saying "it's easy" and "believe me". It isn't Trump that's awesome, but the idea of blowing up the government and challenging all those things they hate and distrust. It's the idea that he is the right tool to make their government work more for them than it works for others.

Lykeios wrote: It IS personal. Trump stands for the people that want me and my friends to just disappear. The LGBT people, the immigrants, the POC, the non-Christians, the leftists, the anarchists, the feminists, the anti-fascists, etc etc etc. Trump wants us all to disappear and have no voice. If you can't understand why this is personal you are part of the problem. It's not childish, it's responding with vehement opposition to the oppressor.

Trump stands for everything I stand opposed to. It IS personal.

If you can't understand that then I say again: You are part of the problem.

No actually its NOT personal. My vote for Trump was not cast just so I could persecute you. But for some reason you insist on demanding that it was. Sorry, but you are not the special snowflake that has been singled out by our president as his primary mission to destroy. All you are doing here is parroting propaganda you have heard. You are the one spewing the untrue hate speech, not the president. I find it ridiculous that people would rather invent excuses to act like this instead of facing reality. Its so dumbfounding to watch people throwing temper tantrums and needing their safe space and pacifier just because of an election.

Why not take a few moments and do some actual open minded research. Sure Trump has opinions just like anyone else. Some I don't agree with but many I do. But one thing he has never done is single out any ethnic group, race or lifestyle and announced he is going to eradicate them. His only position on gay marriage was that he wished it had been left up to the states rather than a federal decision. In that case he is about state power and minimal federal govt power. But social issues like this have never been a major part of his platform and hes not hell bent on reversing any former decisions. Hes about national defense and rebuilding the economy and that has been his focus. He is in no way shape or form a racist. He has disavowed people like David Duke more times than I can count, just one example, and I find it amazing that people just ignore this and instead would rather continue to propagate lies just because "their" candidate didn't get elected.

ZealotX wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

ZealotX wrote: Whether Trump is awesome or not depends on several key factors:

1. your level of education
2. whether you believe everything Trump says
3. whether you actually follow politics
4. whether you hate the government
5. whether you believe in conspiracy theories
6. whether you are racist or sexist
7. whether you think that Trump cares about you instead of wanting the power of the office to benefit himself
8. whether your name is Donald, Jr., Eric, Baron, Ivanka or (sometimes) Jared
9. whether you don't care if your president is respected around the world or you're an isolationist
10. whether you like Russia.

Are you saying stupid people think Trump is awesome... Or smart people think Trump is awesome? Thays a rather big assumption either way.

I don't like Trump and I follow politics. I have friends that don't like Trump and don't follow politics. Please explain.

You don't need to be racist or sexist to think Trump is awesome. Just saying. Women voted for Trump too, and so did many minorities.

Yes, his kids like him. Duh. It's a respect your father thing.

I didn't say at all. That was the point. I left it up to the reader to fill in the presumptions. I have my own beliefs, yes of course. But to imply one's opinions either way would be problematic.

We would all like to think x,y,z of each other and why people voted for Trump, or voted against Hillary. I personally voted for Jill Stein. The truth is that we would all like some easy answer for "why Trump" and there is no simple answer. People voted for him because they wanted different things and thought he was the right "tool" for the job. And people voted against him because they wanted different things and thought he was wrong for the job.

I saw women interviewed that basically didn't want to vote for a female president. Why? Conservative values? The bible?

Yes, a lot of conspiracy theorists would vote Trump because they don't trust the government. But the funny thing about that is, Alex Jones hasn't created any real credibility for himself. His credibility is what is assumed by his shared opposition to the government and his seemingly endless ability to "uncover the truth". People seem to turn off their critical thinking when someone agrees with them. It's harder to be critical in that case. And ultimately, I think this is why Trump won.

Trump attacked everything that the majority of the people (combination of different groups) don't like and don't trust about their government. He didn't tell anyone his plans because he had none. He didn't present solutions for everything because he didn't have any real solutions. He simply identified enough problems to make people nod in agreement. And then they turned off their critical thinking and assumed that he was right about everything. A wall? Cartels are already building tunnels. He himself said that a person could just use a rope to get over. So yes, there's an element of simplicity where many people who aren't that smart would think building a wall was a good solution and trusted him that Mexico would pay for it. Smart people already knew that Mexico would never pay for it and even if we raised tariffs they could do the same. It's not going to happen.

Trump gave people enough to make himself popular. He manipulated people's psychological interests and leveraged their fears. No one here can tell me exactly how Trump is going to fix the economy other than the standard conservative talking points because they assume he is a conservative. Trump is whatever Trump needs to be to get the power he seeks. And he'll use that power to benefit his own businesses. Will it benefit others? Sure, but regulations aren't there to penalize rich people. They exist to protect the public. Without regulations we could not survive capitalism. They balance personal gain against the greater good. If one doesn't care about the greater good then regulations will be evil to them. If one cares about the greater good it is the absence of these regulations that is evil to them. What Trump does, and what other republicans do, is try to link the good of the rich with the good of the poor. If the rich are successful then they'll create more jobs. If they're not creating enough jobs then blame your inability to find a good job on black people and brown people. All Trump has to do is echo what all these people think is wrong and they will substitute the identification of the problem for credibility and competence.

What Donald Trump fundamentally lacks is the ability to make logical decisions involving indirect consequences. He appears, to me, to be unable to understand the decision tree and how his decisions can branch off further down the line. When someone says Trump is awesome, what goes through my mind is that it really isn't Trump that they think is awesome, because they really don't know him and are only hoping that he can fix things because he keeps saying "it's easy" and "believe me". It isn't Trump that's awesome, but the idea of blowing up the government and challenging all those things they hate and distrust. It's the idea that he is the right tool to make their government work more for them than it works for others.

I fail to see an answer to my questioning of your first point, the point on education affecting a person's view of how "awesome" Trump is.

Manu wrote:

ZealotX wrote: It assumes that people in these elevated regions have completely different needs that would never be met by a president chosen by "city-folk". Maybe there was a time when this was true, but it isn't now. It's time for the electoral college to go so that each person gets one vote.

From what I understand, it only assumes that individual States should have the final say on their candidate, and have their vote count on equal grounds with other States.

Voting by population alone would put smaller States at a disadvantage, and the USA is supposed to be a union of sovereign States, not a single centralized State.

Trump won because the Democratic party failed to address the emotional aspects of a political campaign, and have done a poor job at keeping working white men included in their discourse.

This is a well reasoned argument.

So let's say that each state had a popular vote. So let's say 51...52 depending on how you count US territories...

Let's say you win Florida and I win Ohio.

Why can't we be tied? Why is it 29 to 18?

Why can't 1 state get 1 vote and then each state would be equal with every other state?