The Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,906
    I think if the US would be a state of law it would have to follow its own law/constitution, thus, it is the electoral college which has the decision and popular vote is simply irrelevant. Almost all democracies have elements which are in conflict with "popular vote". In Germany, it would be possible in theory that a party with 5.01% of the votes gets 100% of the seats in the Bundestag, simply because all votes for parties below 5.00% are simply ignored. The official justification - one wants to prevent the situation that many very small parties are unable to create stable coalitions - is a made-up argument, given that one could have reached the aim in another way, by allowing the parties below 5.00% to give their votes to other parties. Of course, those "the winner gets all" systems are even worse. But in fact it does not matter much. I do not object against democracies because of that.
    No, given what I have seen from the Dems plans, the system will be modified in such a way that the Dems will certainly win. 1.) making Puerto Rico and Washington DC states, and splitting California into two, to get much more seats in the Senate, 2.) voting rights for prisoners and illegal immigrants, 3.) more immigration, 4.) Increasing the number of Supreme Courts to get an own majority there so that they would not prevent 1.-3.. Or they may simply install an electronic voting system controlled by the NSA.

    So forget about it. Either the Reps win now or never again in foreseeable future.

    There is the possibility that the coming crisis hits so hard that the established order crashes completely, and even those measures would not be sufficient. But then plausibly the system crashes without further elections. The US may split into now Rep-controlled and now Dem-controlled parts, and plausibly in both parts both old Parties will be replaced by something new too.
    You obviously didn't get it. But I have not expected that you get it, so don't worry.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,841
    Nice try... unfortunately like many here you have answered your own imaginary question and not mine...Perhaps you could tell us all the question that you are answering?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,841
    Gosh I am an outsider and even I know that your are talking nonsense... on what basis does the electoral college make it's decisions if not for the vote? To say that the vote is irrelevant is utter crap...
    try again...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,906
    Of course I know that they make the decisions based on the vote in their state. But all this whining about "popular vote" is about something different - it is simply about the majority of US voters voting for Biden.

    The difference is quite essential: The number of voices in the electoral collage is in no way proportional to the population of the state: Small states have less votes, but more votes than simple proportionality would suggest. Then, usually the winner takes it all, thus, the votes for the loser in a given state are simply ignored completely. So, the overall number of votes for Biden is irrelevant for the result. Clinton has won the 2016 election if one would follow this criterion, but the winner of that election was nonetheless Trump.
    I tried to explain you why your question does not make sense in the Russian cultural context. It was a sort of "When do you stop beating your children" question ("when does Putin stop suppressing freedom of speech in the forums" or so).
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,841
    Well... like I posted ...you wrote over 500 words when all you had to post was NO there are no Russian forums that encourage freedom of speech. Why waste so many words when a simple NO would suffice?
    Sure people may talk privately among them selves as long as no FSB (?) is near by, but to publish publicly and provide hard evidence for the FSB (?) is a real no no...

    And do you honestly think message encryption is secure from the FSB (?) in Russia?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2020
  9. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,943
    Trump will go on next January, he cannot stay any longer.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,626
    Which you made - as usual, I listed examples in the post, to illustrate.
    You don't know what my ideology is, of course, but that doesn't matter when your errors are simple and factual - like the ones listed above.
    The language you "share" with its only source is so badly corrupted and distorted by PC considerations as to be essentially meaningless (remember "Liberal Fascism"? Remember refusing to call anything "fascist" unless it first labeled itself and displayed Nazi symbolism?)
    That is a major goal of fascist propaganda efforts: since libertarian, liberal, and most Western leftwing opposition to a fascist movement will rest on reason, on analysis and comparison, on history and science and economics and the like, if the media feed can make such reasoning difficult, destroy its vocabulary and deny it public venues, fascism will be fighting on its own turf.
    You claimed exclusion of good effects from the research reports, and bias in the choice of research topics toward bad effects, and all of that due to threats against vulnerable grad students and political pressure from "the left" or "the deep state" or the "statists" or some vague cabal that is trying to impose tyrannical world government on everybody.
    You have labeled as "alarmist" a great deal of sober, straightforward research findings - for example.
    You make claims about AGW itself. You make claims about the bias in the research, and the research reports. You make claims about the IPCC and similar sources of information about AGW.
    This is your website on the topic. It is not about the media - it is about AGW itself.
    You have no way of identifying problems with the "mass media", because you don't know anything about the reality it is reporting on (with the result that you often agree with it, especially the US rightwing corporate feed, when it is most wrong and biased)
    Get used to the idea that liberals and lefties remember stuff.
    It is a simple, physical, fact. You don't know what the researchers have found, is your problem. You don't know when your claims contradict research findings. Your "justifications" for contradicting them don't change the fact that you are contradicting them.
    And your "justifications" are more of the same, btw - full of assumptions and assertions that conflict with the findings of the researchers in the field. I listed a few, above.
    Your presumption - your explicit claim, repeatedly made here, that you can evaluate propaganda and employ "common sense" and so forth without knowing what you are talking about - is a blunder.
    No such claim appears.
    And it would not be obviously nonsense. For example: I recall you having claimed to have read an article I posted for you about the consequences of crossing tipping points of AGW in certain kinds of regions, and responding to some bit of it you quoted (denying its findings) by posting about your experience in crossing ecozone boundaries on mountains, which you claimed were examples of such things - there's no way to tell, by such responses, whether you read the article or not.
    All of those "considerations" and "expectations" in your posts contradict the findings of researchers and the arguments of better informed people. Every single one of them, in the case of AGW; the majority of them, in discussions of US domestic politics and similar matters. You don't know that, because you don't know what those findings and arguments are.
    Unfortunately, your source identifies them for you. You are unable to identify "PC prescriptions" for yourself, because you lack information. But your source has an agenda; so what you are intentionally and deliberately refusing to "follow" turn out to be the findings of scientific researchers and the sound arguments of competent and informed analysts. Your source is trying to destroy them, for money and power and other reasons of its own, and you are a handy tool.

    And that is how you came to be propagandizing for the likes of Trump and the US Republican Party and the heirs of the Confederacy - while claiming to love freedom, and be libertarian, and so forth, you favor the demolition of whatever remains of liberal and democratically representative government in the most heavily militarized and intrusively corporatized nation on the planet.
     
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,906
    It would not suffice, but misled you. The result of my answer is not different, but this is already not my fault.
    If you would have read and understood those 500 words, you would not have written such nonsense. They give a sh... about the FSB reading that too, ok?
    Strong encryption is secure. As from FSB, as from NSA. This is not a question about "honestly thinking", but a scientific question. If you invent an algorithm breaking the well-known standard strong encryption, you can immediately gain your Fields medal (the analog of the Nobel prize for mathematicians).

    But, of course, you have to care about to get strong encryption. That means, first of all, you have to inform yourself about what is strong encryption and what can be done by the other side without breaking encryption. First of all, the software should be Open Source (encryption which is not open source has always backdoors). If you simply use a pseudonym in one of the asocial media, as that stupid guy who proposed to abduct and murder the children of policemen and then to send them snuff videos, then the FSB can identify you if necessary (and has, in that case).
    Which you think I made. Which is something quite different in your case.
    The point being? I prefer to name fascists those who self-identify that way. What in my decision is PC-distorted? "Liberal fascism" is not my invention, it is simply a good book.
    You are free to use reason here, but unfortunately you prefer personal attacks.
    I do not make such claims about the research. Instead, I explained that even if some distortion toward bad effects would exist in scientific reseach, it would be unproblematic. What I name alarmist is the media presentation of the results.
    No. My website is there, accessible for free, my posts here too, why you are unable to support your claims even with a single quote? Simply because these claims are lies.
    LOL. To identify the lies of the mass media you don't need much knowledge. If you know from scientific papers that the actual increase is 3 mm per year, then you already know enough to evaluate claims about actual victims of sea level rise because of AGW.
    If you would remember anything correctly, you would be able to quote me to prove your points. I know what I think now and also what I have thought in the past, and your claims have nothing to do with what I write. About your black lists I don't care, I don't plan to visit the US even for some holidays or some scientific conference.
    Iceaura's parallel reality. If there would be really some research findings in conflict with my claims, we would have seen here quotes and references to these findings. (And, after this, my corrections of my claims on my website, taking into account these findings.) There are none. We see nothing here except empty claims.
    Once you have no way to tell, then stop to tell lies that I have not read them. Simply use the default assumption that if somebody quotes a paper that he has read it.
    I know that you are lying, This has been proven by the fact that you have not posted any scientific evidence in contradiction with any of my claims, despite my permanent requests here.
    I don't have to, I simply use standard language and don't care about proposals for modifications.
    I have different sources with different agendas. They don't hide their agenda, and so I can take possible distorting effects of that agenda into account. Anyway, I value them because they provide arguments. If the arguments are good, the agenda is irrelevant.
    The fact is that what you are happy to have elected is a mass murderer responsible, as a vice president, for paying terrorists headcutting children in Syria. Whatever remains liberal or democratic in the policies of this mass murderer is something I don't care at all. If I would follow some "an eye for an eye" ideology (I don't) I would have to wish you a civil war where you would start headcutting the children of the other side.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,626
    Common sense would tell you that the vast majority of the fraud in 2020 - almost all of it - was committed by Republican Party officials and their corporate backers.
    Just as it was in 2018, 2016, 2014, 2012, 2010, 2008, and on back to 1992 or before.
    They have no other way of winning national elections or gaining the legislative majorities they enjoy at the State and Federal level (they can't get the votes), they have been caught in "irregularities" dozens of times over the past thirty years or so, they have been the disproportionate beneficiaries of almost every major unexplained statistical absurdity documented since Reagan's election, and they are at the center of every major instance of dubious procedure and circumstance known to be correlated with inexplicable electoral outcomes over the past thirty years (every corporation that provides software and hardware to record and tabulate votes in the US is owned or run by Republican partisans, for example).
    - - - -
    Ignorant foreigner attempts to deal in "facts" without bothering to obtain any.

    I am not happy to have failed in my efforts to prevent the election of Biden to any office. I have been putting time and money into trying to prevent Biden's occupation of public office for years now. (As noted many times prior to the latest, you have no idea what my ideology is (or that of almost any other American)).

    Meanwhile: Biden, as Vice President, was not responsible for paying terrorists for anything. Two of many reasons:
    1) The Vice Presidency carries no such responsibilities or powers - it is not possible to do that "as a Vice President" (a linguistic nuance one could excuse in a foreigner if acknowledged, but you never acknowledge such mistakes).
    2) The policy or practice of paying Danegeld to those kinds of terrorists in that part of the world is Republican - largely via W's administration, becoming important especially during the "Surge" in Iraq. Biden's approval was cheerleading, not responsibility. (As was Trump's, btw).

    The entire Iraq War and all of its subsidiary cruelties and conflicts was and is a Republican Party initiative.
    You intentionally avoid using standard language, and you care about that more than almost anything else - here you are, explicitly telling me, specifically me, that:
    The ones that in fact value freedom as the most important thing - sure.
    Guys like you,

    who think all threats to liberty are governmental and all governmental regulations reduce liberty,
    who can't see a fascist movement when it's running a public campaign to take control of the world's most powerful military,
    who describe a mobbed-up fascist demagogue and near-stereotypical advocate of authoritarian cruelty (right down to the barbwire and chain link concentration camps for children, abused to coerce their parents) as a "businessman",
    who tie themselves in logical pretzels trying to deny societal racial oppression and corporate capitalist abuse of the vulnerable;

    are enemies of freedom.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,841
    It seems that Trump is dragging this election out. Is there a shut of point date so that Biden can get inaugurated in January?
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,471
    He'll be inaugurated. The states all have to certify by some date (varies) and in early January Congress counts the electoral votes and it's a done deal.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,626
    I rest my case.
    So you have often said.
    Thereby revealing near total ignorance of fascism and how it operates, and presenting yourself as a willing tool of whatever fascist movement wants to use you (probably by calling itself "libertarian", as the fascist movement in the US often does - against magic words like that you would have no defense).

    The plausible default assumption - especially after it has been verified in similar cases many times, and you yourself have made the claim - is not a "lie". When the choice is "unread" vs "unbelievably stupid", and you yourself have proclaimed your failure to read, my policy is to give you the benefit of the doubt, trust the evidence, and believe your claims of ignorance.
    You don't know your source. You haven't read it, remember? That's why you don't recognize it in the secondhand versions you claim to be able to evaluate.
    And you once again describe your standard method of maintaining ignorance - in this case, ignorance of US domestic politics and circumstances. Earlier: ignorance of AGW, ignorance of the Mueller Report, ignorance of US racism, ignorance of child labor equilibria, ignorance of economic inequality, ignorance of agriculture, ignorance of ecological matters related to invasive species and harmful organisms vs beneficial and cultivated ones, and so forth.
    Meanwhile: I have no "black lists", and no use myself for the term you attribute to me for some reason. It's an interesting term, to emerge suddenly from nowhere in this thread - it has a significant history in the US; would you care to predict what I would find if I were to trace its recent appearances in US media feeds? Notice that - like most such terms if and when they turn up in the US fascist media feed and then in your posts - it emerged in liberal humanist and left libertarian media reviews and discussions and movies and such a few months ago, and had some influence in denigrating or disparaging the historical Cold War resurgence of fascism in the US - which in turn reflected badly on the current movement, being likewise mean, ignorant, and Republican. So we're due for a backlash, on the apparent schedule.
    No, it isn't. It's the report itself, which the media described accurately. You mistook accurate and informative news for biased and alarmist "media presentation".

    That's your standard error - you continually, in the majority of your posts here, attempt to evaluate media reports without knowing anything about the reality being reported.
     
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,906
    Common sense tells me only that you will blame the Reps for everything bad. And therefore any claims from your side that Reps do something bad are highly dubious. Whatever, it is irrelevant for me who fakes the elections. What matters is that it now becomes well-known everywhere that the US elections are easy to fake, much easier than in every civilized country, and that it is quite plausible that those elections have been stolen.
    I don't have to care about the sort of ... you support. Whatever, once he won the primaries, you supported him as less evil than Trump. Despite him being a leading guy in the murderous Obama gang.
    Every leading politician on this level has such responsibility for such serious crimes. He could have said "not as long as I'm Vice President" and resign in protest. Once he has not done it, he is part of the gang. A Vice Mafia Boss would be also imprisoned simply as a member of that mafia gang for murders done by the whole gang, not?
    W did not start the war in Syria, this was Obama. "Cheerleading" can be used on the lowest level. Not for the Vice President. Or were those sentenced to death in the Nuremberg trial only innocent cheerleaders?
    I intentionally avoid Orwellian distortions when I see them. This is something very different from avoiding standard language.
    LOL. That evil guy you paint as me may be, indeed, an enemy of freedom. But this is a problem of your mind, because that evil guy exists only in your fantasy.
    says the guy who has no defense against the magic word "fascism".
    In other words, you repeated lies became so obvious, and were indefensible given that I have many times quoted those texts you claim I have not read, that you have given up to defend those lies. Now you want to find an excuse for your lies.

    But this attempt will not help you. You know yourself that simply calling me "unbelievably stupid" would not give you anything, it would only make you closer to those unbelievably stupid guys who name everything they are unable to understand "unbelievably stupid". Because, if I would really say something really "unbelievably stupid", many different participants here would have seen that error, quoted me and shown me the stupid error.

    Not from nowhere, but from your line:
    Note, you referenced not to yourself, to your own memory (which is miserable, judging from your claims about me), but in general to "liberals and lefties". So let's see which information about memories of the left have become popular even internationally:

    In other words, AOC openly asks for collecting evidence against Trump supporters and plans something which would make them "downplay or deny their complicity". This is how I interpreted your recommendation to get used to the lefties remembering stuff.
    That's easy. Black lists are evil, thus, so only Reps and fascists have them, liberals never. (They can remember stuff, to prevent the Trump supporters from "downplaying or denying their complicity", but so what, Trump supporters have no reason to try such things, given that supporting Trump is legal. Not?)

    LOL. The media describing something accurately - YMMD.
     
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,797
    Lol, nothing there is based on common sense. It's yet unknown the length and breadth of the damage Trump and his goons have done. Since the election, paper shredders have probably been going 24/7 in the White House. Most likely, the Trump family members will each have their own share of legal battles, both criminal and civil after Jan. 20. You may meet them all soon as they'll probably be hiding out in Russia.
     
  18. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,760
    I just read a quote by an opponent of Trump's, giving him credit "He doesn't talk down to people."
    The man can't outwit an umbrella! Where, from that intellectual level is down? How did so many citizens of a supposedly advanced country become so dumb that Trump could conceivably talk down to them??
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    15,409
    From the DisTrust of the Establishment . Felt by All the People . Trump is not part of the Establishment . He is not in the " White House crowd " so to speak . People like this but not enough , thank-goodness to vote him back in . In this Election .
    And he likes uneducated people . trump ( in lower case letters since I have No respect for him ) is the higher intellect of the simple people , with no disrespect to those who live a simpler life . I have been one myself .

    Distrust of the Establishment is a Wound to the Establishment that is Self Inflicted .
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,841
    and I guess it is quite plausible that those B52's that took off recently are a Trumps dying wish to leave a false presidential legacy on Moscow..in the form of a mushroom cloud?
    Plausibility and actuality are totally different. One being fed by subjective paranoia the other by objectivity ( facts)
    The world is filled with speculation (paranoia) some with a little qualification some totally with out...
    Possibility and probability are both speculative when fueled by fear can become WMD's in their own right leading to so called plausibility.
    The most monitored and scrutinized election ever is most unlikely to be stolen.

    If anything the reason why the Trump did so well is because of Republican vote rigging which unfortunately was not effective enough to beat the genuine desire of the voting population to remove Trump from office.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2020
  21. river

    Messages:
    15,409
    Not really Schmelzer .

    As Canadian looking in , the Elections have been Won by Biden . Why ? Because because Everybody , Every US citizen was encouraged to Vote . By the mainstream media . From both sides .
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2020
  22. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,760
    You should see the numbers Biden would have carried if the republicans had not been allowed to gerrymander and disenfranchise poor/Black/ethnic/Hispanic districts.
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    15,409
    No Doubt , trump is a mean mean man . republicans are scared of him , individually , for good reason .

    But collectively the power is there . Will They Excerise their will , who knows , But I Absolutely Hope They will . Seriously .
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2020 at 12:59 AM

Share This Page