Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.
Why am I no longer surprised that we have Trump apologists here?
Recently it seems people are quick to say what they feel only to apologize a short time later for fear of being chastised.
I just like that he has the audacity to say what he feels regardless. It doesn't mean I have to agree with what he says, and most cases I don't.
Honestly, I don't think it's a ruse, I think he actually believes everything he says.
That's the freedom of the EU, that currently is in huge danger, because of millions of refugees from Syria. Might that be the muslims Trump fears ... well, he has a reason to, when I see how tricky it becomes in Europe to take care of these poor people. And yes, even in Europe people are afraid of criminals and terrorism sleepers.
Compared to what happens in Europe currently, the Mexican border is peanuts, sorry, no offence intended.
Refugees and illegal immigration are not one in the same. The Syrian crisis is recent and meant a massive influx of refugees into Europe. It's bad, yes. But The US/Mexico situation has been a thing for decades. It's a chronic problem.
And I don't consider myself a trump apologist.... But I do consider myself unbound to the DNC. I am equally dissatisfied with both parties.
The DNC is going to nominate Hillary over the wishes of most normal people.... Is this the party of true democracy? I think not.
As far as I can see, they're going to nominate Clinton because she's winning the primary election. That's how democracy is supposed to work, isn't it?
FFS wait until the primaries are done at least. It's entirely possible Hillary walks away with more delegates without using supers. How is that anything other than the will of [the subset of Democratic voters who vote in the primaries]?
Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather see a career politician in the whitehouse over a career buffoon.
I know there's some crossover between the two.
This gives a good measure of "greatness" over a scale of things, wealth, education etc...
Patriotism seems to come before common sense with some people
I have yet to hear one of these Trump conundrums ("How can he say that and his poll numbers go up?" "How can he not rebuke David Duke and not be considered a white supremacists sympathizer?") that doesn't line up completely with the fact that being wealthy totally changes the amount of latitude people give him.
I know its going to sound like i'm just parroting Bernie, but I really do agree with pretty much everything he has to say. We obviously need some structural reforms of our governance system before we can even start to think about tackling any of the issues in any serious way. If I could name two pieces of legislation that would be the building blocks for more general reform I think it would be
1. election reform, starting with extending the actual voting period, as well as automatic voter registration. You can't just have a single election day in a country of almost half a billion people and expect high voter turnout. Especially not when most working class people are too busy, you know, trying to hold their lives together. I think if we had an entire week to go vote instead of a single day, turnout would be much higher just because it would work with people's schedules. Not to mention just get rid of superdelegates all together.
2. Campaign finance reform, I don't think I need to explain why.
From there, I think it would be much easier for the American people to exercise their right to weed corruption out of our government via the democratic process. From there we could outlaw gerrymandering, so voters pick the candidates, and candidates don't pick the voters. Outlaw omnibus budget bills, ect, ect. But like Bernie has said, without a total revitalization of the very heart of our democracy, nothing can get done in any meaningful way.
I think it is very much worth breaking that out for the US; we're a strange mix of extreme wealth but huge inequality, unevenly distributed education levels, really high tech development but also shockingly high infant mortality rates for some groups, etc.
Will, I think Celtic and I probably both wholeheartedly agree with those positions (or most of them, at least), but none of that is actually a response to the discussion
I can only think so hard. I wish I had a better answer to the question.
I'm fully on-board with election reform, especially things like extended voting periods that make it easier for working-class people to cast ballots. Fully 3/5 of the states, in fact, already allow unconditional early voting, so theoretically you could make this happen by bringing appropriate political leverage to bear in the states that don't currently allow it. The superdelegates are a different issue - that's a Democratic Party (read: private entity) policy, not a government policy, so you have to bring entirely different leverage to bear to make that change. (Additionally, superdelegates have never altered the outcome of a Democratic primary - the popular-vote winner has always received the nomination.) Gerrymandering is a state-level problem, not a national problem, so you're going to have to work on that state-by-state; I think you'd have a high Constitutional bar to argue that all states have to adhere to a federally-dictated system for determining voting districts. Campaign finance probably has to be solved at the federal level.
I disagree. More of the same is going to get us more of the same.
If the alternative is "ever so much worse," I'll take "more of the same" for $500.
We're way OT here, but as long as we're on the subject: I support voting reform because it's morally the right thing to do. The existing data, however, does not suggest that we're likely to see massive changes in American voter turnout as a result of those changes. A number of studies from the past decade or so show conflicting results, with some even indicating that early voting *depresses* turnout by lowering urgency. A 2015 conference paper (meaning: probably not peer-reviewed) that I found (https://electionconference2015.mit....images/Convenience Voting and Turnout_MIT.pdf) suggests that the difference in turnout between the most-restrictive voting states and the most-permissive states was about 7% - a change from 36.5% turnout to 43.7% turnout (Figure 3, p. 18). Compared to turnout rates in other advanced democracies - see, for example, U.S. voter turnout trails most developed countries | Pew Research Center - that's still pathetic.
Too bad? Why should we freely let anyone, from anywhere in? I do not like Trump the Candidate at all but you know what? I'm very supportive of a stricter immigration policy (interestingly enough, so is the half of my family that came from South America legally). Couple tighter border controls with heavy fines on companies that rely on illegal migrant labor and you get my vote
If it wasn't for the racist pandering and fear mongering (hell, actual racism. Who know what he actually believes) I wouldn't be that opposed to voting Trump. The guy was fairly liberal most of his life so I'm pretty skeptical about a lot of his claims. Not worth the risk currently though. I'd hate to play any part in getting a honest to god racist in the oval office.
Though I want him to get the nomination so we can continue to watch the GOP implode. The faster the party falls apart the better for American politics in the long run.
The backflips and contortions they're trying to do to suddenly disavow Trump, or claim he can't/isn't winning, or NOW get their .... together, or to pretend that he's anything other than the natural culmination of their politics and language, are hysterical.