Donald Trump watch

Can you expand a bit on that hans? Not sure what you mean. The senate seems like by far the more democratic of the 2. It doesn't matter that it doesn't represent the percentage of people, it represents each state. And it actually generates "middle of the road" centrist politicians like Susan Collins that are willing to reach across the aisle, unlike the gerrymandered house. (That gets reelected every 2 years so lobbyists have an unduly influence over). The US senate is a way better upper house than the House of Lords, for instance.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Can you expand a bit on that hans? Not sure what you mean. The senate seems like by far the more democratic of the 2. It doesn't matter that it doesn't represent the percentage of people, it represents each state.

This is what I mean. Why is this never questioned by Americans?

It represents each state, and each state has the same vote.
But the states are grossly different in populations size. How is this not recognized as a problem in representation?

Basically a bunch of hillbilly morons like Orrin Hatch or Chuck Grassley are deciding for millions of smart Californians and New Yorkians.. and then you wonder how you end up with a guy like Kavanaugh being confirmed?

Everyone should have a vote, of course. But the way it is, the vote of midwestern rural voters has up to 50, IN WORDS: FIFTY, times the weight of a Californian or a NYC voter.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Can you expand a bit on that hans? Not sure what you mean. The senate seems like by far the more democratic of the 2. It doesn't matter that it doesn't represent the percentage of people, it represents each state.

This is what I mean. Why is this never questioned by Americans?

It represents each state, and each state has the same vote.
But the states are grossly different in populations size. How is this not recognized as a problem in representation?

Basically a bunch of hillbilly morons like Orrin Hatch or Chuck Grassley are deciding for millions of smart Californians and New Yorkians.. and then you wonder how you end up with a guy like Kavanaugh being confirmed?

Everyone should have a vote, of course. But the way it is, the vote of midwestern rural voters has up to 50, IN WORDS: FIFTY, times the weight of a Californian or a NYC voter.

I have no idea why a lot Americans think it's undemocratic to not have each state have the same influence.

I think it's absolutely mental that each state has the same amount of senators. Basically punishing people for not living in a noon-populated area.

That way of democracy is ancient and it should be majorly reformed imo.

It's a system of checks and balances. The lower house is by population and the upper house by States. It is supposed to prevent populist measures that would hurt the under-represented in the house, otherwise you would simply have majority-rule. This would be completely lost if the number of senators would also be awarded by population.

That being said I agree it's a bit crazy that a state with the population the size of California only gets 2 senators, but that may be an argument for splitting up California as clearly it has gotten too big for a state administration. In the past Massachussetts was split for this reason (it previously included most of the Northeast).

Considering a democracy is a majority rule I really can't see the problem in that

Luckily the US is a republic and not a pure democracy, with protections built in against majority rule. In a majority rule society the rights of religious, ethnic and economic minorities would be easily swept aside (and while you could argue that this does in fact happen, it would be worse without the institutions that prevent it). The US government was designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

No countries are direct democracies. Think Switzerland is the closest.

US is a representative democracy. Just like most other countries in western civilisation. They just haven’t adapted to modern times.

You majority rule might be bad. But if anything I think the current minority rule is even worse. How can 45% of the voters have effect in the rest? And that seem fair.

It’s funny how your argument against majority rule is that the minorities in religion and ethnic would be swept aside. Isn’t that still what’s happening exactly because a minority can rule?

Freeza wrote:No countries are direct democracies. Think Switzerland is the closest.

US is a representative democracy. Just like most other countries in western civilisation. They just haven’t adapted to modern times.

You majority rule might be bad. But if anything I think the current minority rule is even worse. How can 45% of the voters have effect in the rest? And that seem fair.

It’s funny how your argument against majority rule is that the minorities in religion and ethnic would be swept aside. Isn’t that still what’s happening exactly because a minority can rule?

am i right in thinking that switzerland are the only country thats never been at war.

yes

RealGunner wrote:yes

tbh thats a sad stat for the human race.

Since 1840’s at least

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Luckily the US is a republic and not a pure democracy, with protections built in against majority rule. In a majority rule society the rights of religious, ethnic and economic minorities would be easily swept aside (and while you could argue that this does in fact happen, it would be worse without the institutions that prevent it). The US government was designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

But that's what you have constitutional rights for. You can define things that can't be superseded by a majority vote, like human rights including minority rights.
So that's a non-argument tbh

Haven't read through this entire set of posts but on the Kanye thing, he's admitted to being diagnosed with bi-polar but doesn't take meds. And TBH if you're manic as much as he seems to be you wouldn't want to, feels great especially when the other half of your life is depression. All of his "controversial" stuff are classic symptoms of bi-polar mania.


People are calling the sending the troops to the border an election tactic, I see it as a distraction to Trumps attempts to define me out of existence.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/24/trump-administration-gender-transgender-united-nations

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/1/18052306/apple-google-facebook-pushback-trump-transgender-policy-title-ix

It's $200m in wasteful spending as well as taking these troops away from their families for the Holidays, all because of 5000 people fleeing widespread corruption and gang/cartel violence?

And before our resident conservatives pipe in, yes Mexico's deal was quite generous and it's Southern regions are quite safer than the cartel-ridden North. Those Southern regions are also closer to the countries these folks are trying to escape from, leaving them vulnerable to potential retaliation from the gangs they are fleeing from.

The sad thing is that I don't think my country is as safe as it seems. These people will have targets on their backs if some whacked out militia doesn't take matters into their own hands at the border first.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Luckily the US is a republic and not a pure democracy, with protections built in against majority rule. In a majority rule society the rights of religious, ethnic and economic minorities would be easily swept aside (and while you could argue that this does in fact happen, it would be worse without the institutions that prevent it). The US government was designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority".

But that's what you have constitutional rights for. You can define things that can't be superseded by a majority vote, like human rights including minority rights.
So that's a non-argument tbh

The constitution is a 250 year old document that Americans are too afraid to change. It cannot be relied on to be always applicable to the modern world.

Ehh we've changed it. 15 times if you go by the amendments. Even more if you go by the changes made to interpret those amendments differently.

It's certain amendments, primarily those that reside within the Bill of Rights, that we are too afraid to change. Ironically, those are the ones we need to change the most. Like I said earlier, the 2nd amendment is the 1 amendment that needs the most updating. The fear around changing it is manufactured by the gun lobby.

With the midterms tomorrow, I'm making this thread the overall US politics thread.

As Trump is (unfortunately) a huge part of US politics, I would imagine quite a few of the topics in this thread will still revolve around him.

McLewis wrote:Ehh we've changed it. 15 times if you go by the amendments. Even more if you go by the changes made to interpret those amendments differently.

It's certain amendments, primarily those that reside within the Bill of Rights, that we are too afraid to change. Ironically, those are the ones we need to change the most. Like I said earlier, the 2nd amendment is the 1 amendment that needs the most updating. The fear around changing it is manufactured by the gun lobby.

do you think more people would be for changing the 2nd amendment than against if it was put to a brexit style vote.

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:Ehh we've changed it. 15 times if you go by the amendments. Even more if you go by the changes made to interpret those amendments differently.

It's certain amendments, primarily those that reside within the Bill of Rights, that we are too afraid to change. Ironically, those are the ones we need to change the most. Like I said earlier, the 2nd amendment is the 1 amendment that needs the most updating. The fear around changing it is manufactured by the gun lobby.

do you think more people would be for changing the 2nd amendment than against if it was put to a brexit style vote.

Given that Democrats/Liberals outnumber Republicans/Conservatives here, yes I believe that could happen. What gives me overall pause though is that the gun lobby would still find a way to exert influence and turn things in their favor. They've done this regardless of who has the majority or who has the political power in Washington.

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:Ehh we've changed it. 15 times if you go by the amendments. Even more if you go by the changes made to interpret those amendments differently.

It's certain amendments, primarily those that reside within the Bill of Rights, that we are too afraid to change. Ironically, those are the ones we need to change the most. Like I said earlier, the 2nd amendment is the 1 amendment that needs the most updating. The fear around changing it is manufactured by the gun lobby.

do you think more people would be for changing the 2nd amendment than against if it was put to a brexit style vote.

Think it would be like 70/30 for changing it tbh. To some extent. Like banning auto and semi automatic weapons. Getting good background checks for all gun purchases. Refusing domestic abusers etc.

McLewis wrote:

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:Ehh we've changed it. 15 times if you go by the amendments. Even more if you go by the changes made to interpret those amendments differently.

It's certain amendments, primarily those that reside within the Bill of Rights, that we are too afraid to change. Ironically, those are the ones we need to change the most. Like I said earlier, the 2nd amendment is the 1 amendment that needs the most updating. The fear around changing it is manufactured by the gun lobby.

do you think more people would be for changing the 2nd amendment than against if it was put to a brexit style vote.

Given that Democrats/Liberals outnumber Republicans/Conservatives here, yes I believe that could happen. What gives me overall pause though is that the gun lobby would still find a way to exert influence and turn things in their favor. They've done this regardless of who has the majority or who has the political power in Washington.

i saw one of michael moores documentarys before and it talked about the NRA and tbh i was shocked about how much power they have. its like a gun club can take on the government.

Freeza wrote:

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:Ehh we've changed it. 15 times if you go by the amendments. Even more if you go by the changes made to interpret those amendments differently.

It's certain amendments, primarily those that reside within the Bill of Rights, that we are too afraid to change. Ironically, those are the ones we need to change the most. Like I said earlier, the 2nd amendment is the 1 amendment that needs the most updating. The fear around changing it is manufactured by the gun lobby.

do you think more people would be for changing the 2nd amendment than against if it was put to a brexit style vote.

Think it would be like 70/30 for changing it tbh. To some extent. Like banning auto and semi automatic weapons. Getting good background checks for all gun purchases. Refusing domestic abusers etc.

You don't need to change the 2nd amendment to do all that. You only need representatives that aren't corrupt.

Unique wrote:

McLewis wrote:

Unique wrote: do you think more people would be for changing the 2nd amendment than against if it was put to a brexit style vote.

Given that Democrats/Liberals outnumber Republicans/Conservatives here, yes I believe that could happen. What gives me overall pause though is that the gun lobby would still find a way to exert influence and turn things in their favor. They've done this regardless of who has the majority or who has the political power in Washington.

i saw one of michael moores documentarys before and it talked about the NRA and tbh i was shocked about how much power they have. its like a gun club can take on the government.

It's a huge industry, and they've built up a very determined and effective lobby with the NRA and they're pouring loads of money onto (mostly Republican) candidates and representatives.
It's a problem of money in politics, of corruption, basically.

soooo no one cares abouts Trumps campaign to remove my rights?

good to know.

Bellabong wrote:soooo no one cares abouts Trumps campaign to remove my rights?

good to know.

Why do you think that? Because noone has posted about it? That would be a wrong conclusion to draw

Bellabong wrote:soooo no one cares abouts Trumps campaign to remove my rights?

good to know.

go back a few pages and read some of the posts.