The Awesomeness of Trump

Arisaig wrote:

ZealotX wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
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.

Again... I didn't say which was which because I didn't want to.

So your original statement cannot be backed up, or you made a statement that even you don't believe.

You didn't say which was because you didn't want to? But you did say it.

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

1. your level of education

You blatantly stated, in black and white for permanent record, that a person's level of education affected their ability to see Trump as "Awesome or not". I, for one, am intrigued by this and wish to know if you meant a higher education or lack thereof makes a person see Trump as, quote, "awesome" as your statement seems quite definitive, and should have some sort of evidence to back it up, no?

Yes, I gave you my opinion on that specific question because you pressed me for my opinion on that specific question. Giving my opinions was not the point of the previous post which is why it did not include it. I said I didn't want to which was an accurate statement. I didn't want to. That would be against the point I was making in the first post. You wanting to know my thoughts is a different question, requiring a different response. I don't think you would have been satisfied without me revealing my opinion so even though I didn't want to, I did.

Now you are continuing to probe my OPINION which is separate from my post about different factors. There's nothing wrong with that. I'm just making sure you understand that revealing my opinion was not the intention of that previous post. It was the ambiguity of the post that was the point. That's how Trump got elected in spite of contradicting narratives from the media judging different demographics. They were wrong. Hillary's information was wrong. Therefore, you cannot say "smart people will vote against Trump". That's not an accurate statement although it is what many would like to think.

Furthermore, I was very specific as to how education could affect a person's view of Trump. Let me highlight certain words in my opinion that speak to whether or not it is definitive.

If you followed the election coverage you know they discussed different demographics and how they voted. If a person is less intelligent the would be more easily swayed by Trump and less likely to hold him to a high standard of intelligence. They wouldn't judge him for not "sounding smart". They might even enjoy his limited vocabulary because they wouldn't feel like some elite was constantly trying to talk over their heads.

When you're talking about large swaths of people I find it impossible to dictate what everyone will do. Therefore, it only makes sense to discuss populations in uncertain terms that suggest probabilities rather than certainties. I don't think I need to provide evidence that less educated people tend to be more gullible or more easily convinced. When you're working with a limited set of facts it is easier for someone else to present (alternative) "facts" to you and you actually accept them. If you already know that they're wrong then they would have to convince you that you are wrong. No such indictment is necessary when you're not challenging a pre-existing idea. Case in point, I could say that you are one of the more intelligent people on this site. I can tell by your responses and what you choose to respond to. Yes, I'm speaking about you in a personal way but it's purely complimentary. If I had not challenged an idea already in your head you would be less likely to respond. So the point is that there is a different way that people handle information when they are already informed. Having formal education doesn't make you or mean that you are smart. It simply increases the likelihood of the student possessing a higher level of intelligence. This also helps to determine how you treat positive factors for Trump vs negative factors and ultimately how you'll vote. But it is not politically correct to deduce behavior this way (again, I'm not saying smarter people will not vote for Trump, only that it makes it LESS likely in my opinion).

If you don't like the facts, just call it an opinion piece. And how do you like his hateful transgender military ban Kyrin?

The Electoral College Doesn't Work The Way The Founding Fathers Intended

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-12-27/the-electoral-college-doesnt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

People can honestly disagree about the Electoral College system as it is currently implemented – and a startling number of people ... seem genuinely opposed to the very idea of majority rule – but you can't suggest that what we have now is the founder's' vision come to life.

See: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

The process of election [by The Electoral College] affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity [Trump personified], may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.


https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-12-27/the-electoral-college-doesnt-work-the-way-the-founding-fathers-intended

And we can fix this without amending the constitution. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

@ZealotX

Excellent. I would recommend that next time around your opinions are stated as such. I was concerned there was actual evidence to support your claim.

Look… it is apparent that no one here is properly subjectively internalizing. We already know that we just need some bias, subjective opinions and an unyielding strangle hold on farcical crap to be a guru.

But how do we go about debating a topic or presenting a reasonable argument you ask?

Buzz words are the key to any good argument. :ohmy:

You don’t need proof.

You don’t need a reasonable argument.

Shoot, in several people’s posts we can see you don’t even need to string together a series of words in to a coherent sentence. :blink:

Just lots of buzz words.

And if you want to sound smart, drop in some multiple syllable words and reference stuff you found on the internet! :laugh:

Arisaig wrote: @ZealotX

Excellent. I would recommend that next time around your opinions are stated as such. I was concerned there was actual evidence to support your claim.

I'm not sure what would lead you to believe otherwise. Intent is one thing. Perception is another.

@Zealot -
Fear is not something to be avoided. In warns us of danger. In this case the founders chose a system based on the Wisdom of history where true democracies ended in failure. If you decide to just ignore that wisdom you are not doing this nation a favor, you are dooming it to failure.

As for your second question, asked and already answered. Please read. I'm not going to repeat myself.


@BR John -
Sure that's a brilliant Idea, you don't like what is written in the constitution so you just decide to avoid it all together and come up with your own system. I cant wait to see how far that gets you. The first step to tyranny right there.

As for your other question about the military, I agree with the ban. I have stated this before that transgenderism is a disorder no different than any other mental or physical disorder that would preclude one from military service. Not everyone gets to serve and many are denied for a myriad of reasons - this is just one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0&index=2&list=PLRTSTGYHvYZWEH5C9wsGfCNbNXF84QwSi

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: @Zealot -
Fear is not something to be avoided. In warns us of danger. In this case the founders chose a system based on the Wisdom of history where true democracies ended in failure. If you decide to just ignore that wisdom you are not doing this nation a favor, you are dooming it to failure.

As for your second question, asked and already answered. Please read. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Fear is a perception. It is only as real as it is to you. Danger may or not exist. Just because you're afraid doesn't mean you should be. Just because you fear a certain thing happening doesn't mean it will. If you act based on fear rather than foresight; rather than a reaction to the danger, that can certainly be "a path to the darkside".

The founders were not super humans. They were normal flesh and blood people with faults and failings. They were reacting to a form of government that was corrupt to the point of fleeing and fighting. The constitution of the United States therefore presents us with tools to avoid past and similar corruption.

However, did the founding fathers foresee the internet? Did they foresee gerrymandering? Did they foresee voter purges and what forms of id would be accepted? Did the founders foresee how corporations would be treated as people? Did they foresee Citizen's United? Did they want corporations to be able to lobby the legislative branch of government? Did they want our lawmakers to be motivated by money?

I understand what you're saying and I'm not against you. But what I'm suggesting to you is that amendments exist because even the founding fathers knew that we would need to be able to change the system they created. They knew that people would find ways to exploit the law. They knew that people would still find avenues of corruption. So while I think there are changes that need to happen, I'm not suggesting the foundations of the country be broken down to construct something new and better. There are tools embedded in our constitution that allow us to change our constitution and they are there because that was the intention of the founding fathers who knew, understood, and embraced their limitations. That IS wisdom. And we have to know when to think for ourselves and when to make those changes. If you and I could agree that the founding fathers did not intend for the government to be corrupt and for the government to always serve its people rather than an elite few, then I think we could agree that changes were necessary if the government is veering off course.

The question is, do you think the government is veering off course or do you think everything is fine and what the founders intended.

On the second question, I asked you how it would remove the separation of power. What post did you address this in? It's not my intent to make you repeat yourself but if you didn't say this to me I don't really intend to randomly scan through 17+ pages of posts.

The other question I referred to was one I originally asked someone else. Why couldn't Florida count the same as Ohio? Again, if this was answered, please tell me where you answered it so I can be edified.

Thanks

ZealotX wrote: Fear is a perception. It is only as real as it is to you. Danger may or not exist. Just because you're afraid doesn't mean you should be. Just because you fear a certain thing happening doesn't mean it will. If you act based on fear rather than foresight; rather than a reaction to the danger, that can certainly be "a path to the darkside".

As I said our founders did act on foresight that was based on wisdom of the past. If we do not learn from our past, fear and avoid those mistakes proven to be detrimental, we are only doomed to repeat those failures.

ZealotX wrote: The founders were not super humans. They were normal flesh and blood people with faults and failings. They were reacting to a form of government that was corrupt to the point of fleeing and fighting. The constitution of the United States therefore presents us with tools to avoid past and similar corruption.

Not only did they study the governmental system they left but they also studied many other past systems. The form of govt they enacted was not a knee jerk reaction to a King they felt slighted them. It was a measured and thoroughly thought out response to avoid the mistakes of every state nation they had a history of that had come before them and the mistakes that had doomed them to failure.

ZealotX wrote: However, did the founding fathers foresee the internet? Did they foresee gerrymandering? Did they foresee voter purges and what forms of id would be accepted? Did the founders foresee how corporations would be treated as people? Did they foresee Citizen's United? Did they want corporations to be able to lobby the legislative branch of government? Did they want our lawmakers to be motivated by money?

YES they did foresee! They may not have known the terms you describe but they knew the potential for corruption and evolution of this nation. They put every check and balance in place they could muster in order to keep those potential threats in check. So far they have succeeded immeasurably. For people now to ignore the past and not see the wisdom in their decisions is disheartening to say the least.

ZealotX wrote: I understand what you're saying and I'm not against you. But what I'm suggesting to you is that amendments exist because even the founding fathers knew that we would need to be able to change the system they created. They knew that people would find ways to exploit the law. They knew that people would still find avenues of corruption. So while I think there are changes that need to happen, I'm not suggesting the foundations of the country be broken down to construct something new and better. There are tools embedded in our constitution that allow us to change our constitution and they are there because that was the intention of the founding fathers who knew, understood, and embraced their limitations. That IS wisdom. And we have to know when to think for ourselves and when to make those changes. If you and I could agree that the founding fathers did not intend for the government to be corrupt and for the government to always serve its people rather than an elite few, then I think we could agree that changes were necessary if the government is veering off course.

I agree completely, Amendments are in place for exactly what you describe. What they are not there for, though, is to dismantle what was put in place in the checks and balances of this system. No system is perfect and no system will ever be. Just as well, no amount of visionary foresight will ever conceive of every possible scenario and be able to plan for it. If we can come up with ways to improve the electoral college I’m all for it. I’ll vote for it and support it wholeheartedly. But what we should not do… in fact never do… is just abandon it all together in favor of popular vote or even worse do an end run around the constitution and implement something that will doom the nation to failure.

ZealotX wrote: The question is, do you think the government is veering off course or do you think everything is fine and what the founders intended.

No I don’t think we are veering off course. In fact I think we are finally getting back on course by putting the national govts emphasis on national defense and the economy again as it should be and getting rid of the bureaucracy and socialist reforms. However that is not to say that we as Americans should ever take our eye off the govt and its machinations. The second we do that is the second we lose ourselves.

ZealotX wrote: On the second question, I asked you how it would remove the separation of power. What post did you address this in? It's not my intent to make you repeat yourself but if you didn't say this to me I don't really intend to randomly scan through 17+ pages of posts.

The other question I referred to was one I originally asked someone else. Why couldn't Florida count the same as Ohio? Again, if this was answered, please tell me where you answered it so I can be edified.

Watch the video I posted. It explains it better than I can.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Its an absolutely fair comparison. Why would you advocate the dismantling of part of the natural checks and balances of our federal govt but leave another in place? Once the electoral college is gone that makes it that much easier for people to say well we don't need congress structured like it is anymore either. lets change that as well. and the next thing you know you have a true democracy.. and from there a monarchy is one step away. These are the very reasons our founding fathers setup things like they did. They knew from history things like true democracy don't work, they implode eventually and so they set up this checks and balance of power in all aspects of our national govt. By giving in to a popular election you take power from the states and allow for the possibility that one portion of the nation, say the east coast for example, could begin to dominate the election through sheer numbers. This possibility is what our founding fathers designed against.

The Electoral College is not a check or balance on any branch of government. It literally only elects the President. It checks and balances States, but not fairly. It was conceived as a way to placate slave states so they would ratify the Constitution. And by the way, the U.S. was only the East Coast when it was written and it basically came down to Massachussetts and New York vs Virginia and Georgia. Read the history. The Electoral college has been outdated for over a century.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Also one more note, as to your comment on California and Texas always being one way. In fact you are not correct. California was actually a republican dominated state as late as 1988 and Texas also was different in that they used to vote Democrat. Swing states are always changing, nothing is set in stone and the second you say that it is will be when in changes.

I'm speaking of perception in each election. Voter turnout is directly affected by whether your state is already decided. California is on the West Coast. Our state gets called before the polls even close. Why would I go vote after work if I already know the outcome? A popular vote eliminates this East Coast bias that now exists in a time when results are nearly instantaneous. The system needs to update with the times.

Lets look at some basic facts when it comes to Trump:

From Gallup , the approval ratings of past presidents.

Barack Obama 52% Sep 2009
George W. Bush 76% Sep 2001
Bill Clinton 50% Sep 1993
George H.W. Bush 70% Sep 1989
Ronald Reagan 52% Sep 1981
Jimmy Carter 57% Sep 1977
Richard Nixon 59% Sep 1969
John Kennedy 79% Sep 1961
Dwight Eisenhower 61% Sep 1953

And then there is Trump, with a current weekly average of 36%. In fact, Trump has yet to hit even a fifty percent approval rating since being elected (as of today 09/07/2017) 230 days.

Heck, even look at George W. Bush, who was the last big joke the states pumped out as a president (yet again another that didn't actually win by votes) had at least a good approval rating.

Yes, I understand why the electoral college is in place... but it needs a drastic reform.

Lets look at a history of popular vote wins that were overruled by the electoral college.

Electoral College Wins

1824: John Quncy Adams
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
1888: Benjamin Harrison
(Notice the HUGE gap between these two dates)
2000: George W. Bush
2016: Donald Trump

And then suddenly, after that huge gap, the two joke presidents get elected. In ~100 years the electoral college did not step in. And then in the past 2 decades we get the two (arguably) worst presidents to date, jokes in their own rights.

Perhaps the electoral college needs to bow to people power (you know, the definition of Democracy) more often and stop flexing their proverbial muscles and messing up the country.