Kalbear Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 4 minutes ago, Altherion said: It turns out that Trump was not just being a sore loser after the debate: If he's smart, he will take this and run with it. Even if it is ultimately a minor issue, shouting that the system is rigged is a much more electorally profitable endeavor than insulting the overweight. This has some more details. Specifically it was his sound early in the debate, it was fixed very quickly, and had nothing to do with the TV volume whatsoever. If he wants to shout conspiracy about that good luck with it. My suspicion is that he won't be able to drop his furor at being mocked and ridiculed by a woman that he doesn't consider attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 12 minutes ago, Altherion said: It turns out that Trump was not just being a sore loser after the debate: If he's smart, he will take this and run with it. Even if it is ultimately a minor issue, shouting that the system is rigged is a much more electorally profitable endeavor than insulting the overweight. First off, he's not smart. Secondly, run with what? How does he claim 'the system is rigged' around an issue that impacted the sound level in the great hall? It's nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Two steps to help considerably reformation of our political system could be taken immediately, if the electorate had the heart to insist determinedly. One, get rid of PACs and private money in elections. Concentrate particularly that contributions can not be made by orgs and individuals from outside the states or other local localities in which elections that aren't for POTUS are held. Two, fight back hard and determinedly against voter repression and supression in all forms, including denying ex-prisoners their right to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Just now, Zorral said: Two steps to help considerably reformation of our political system could be taken immediately, if the electorate had the heart to insist determinedly. One, get rid of PACs and private money in elections. Concentrate particularly that contributions can not be made by orgs and individuals from outside the states or other local localities in which elections that aren't for POTUS are held. Two, fight back hard and determinedly against voter repression and supression in all forms, including denying ex-prisoners their right to vote. The first is effectively impossible. There are too many ways that money can be circulated and sent around to make it difficult. Probably a better option is to allow unlimited funding for anything, period - but require 100% transparency of where those funds come from, and every donation above a certain size must be vetted by an independent group before being passed on to the candidates. Universal automated voter registration would go a long, long way towards helping the second. My personal take is that we must, absolutely, remove first past the post voting systems in every place they exist. For those who don't want to use the California system, implement a closed primary followed by an instant run-off voting system. For almost everything else - local and state representatives, any kind of council - do MMP style. For individual positions instant runoff should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 The phrase "Trump should run with it" fills me with a combination of excitement and morbid curiosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said: The phrase "Trump should run with it" fills me with a combination of excitement and morbid curiosity. This absolutely has to be the first time anyone's ever said this about Mike Pence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 32 minutes ago, aceluby said: First off, he's not smart. Secondly, run with what? How does he claim 'the system is rigged' around an issue that impacted the sound level in the great hall? It's nonsensical. It did not affect the sound level in general, it only affected what Trump said. In a normal election, I would agree with you -- as far as evidence for a conspiracy to throw Trump off his game goes, this is pretty thin. However, it gives him the opportunity to point out all of the other ways the system has favored Clinton so far: the mysteriously altered party registrations in several states with closed primaries, the shenanigans in the DNC email leaks, etc. I'm not saying this will undo the entire effect of the debate, but it is certainly better than the stuff he's talking about now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghadrack Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said: There the same group with slightly different garb and grooming, thats the only thing that distinguishes any difference. Neocon/Taliban same oil soup licking beast. Don't forget Muslims in America also lack the numbers, political power and sense of entitlement to cram their beliefs and fake morals down other peoples throats while waving the constitution they crap all over every time they try to enforce their religious viewpoints on Americans who don't buy their brand of religion. Thanks a lot Jesus, most of your followers forgot how to read your unathorized biography and became idiot bullies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said: I've moved on from that, the Westminster system is simply a superior form of government. You mean former General and then Secretary of State Alexander Haig? The one who was directing crisis management at the White House until the Vice-President arrived? Well that is a polite description of the situation. And all those terrible reporters ridiculing him for not knowing the rules of succession. Did they have to be so mean pointing out that he was not even in the chain of command? The nerve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 1 minute ago, maarsen said: Well that is polite description of the situation. And all those terrible reporters ridiculing him for not knowing the rules of succession. Did they have to be so mean pointing out that he was not even in the chain of command? The nerve. The Secretary of State is in the chain of command. The two people ahead of him would have had to resign their positions in order to take control at the White House before the arrival of the Vice-President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 The thing is on civilian control of the military is that right now, what we have is fairly bad - the unending war prosecution based on a very flimsy authorization. Ideally with a CiC you don't give them alone unlimited powers. They have the choice of how to prosecute war, but they can't start or declare wars by themselves - that's up to congress. That check alone should be enough. It isn't right now, and that's on Bush, Obama and congress - but they can end that pretty fast, hopefully. Clinton and Kaine saying they need a new authorization is one of the biggest reasons alone to vote for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: The thing is on civilian control of the military is that right now, what we have is fairly bad - the unending war prosecution based on a very flimsy authorization. Ideally with a CiC you don't give them alone unlimited powers. They have the choice of how to prosecute war, but they can't start or declare wars by themselves - that's up to congress. That check alone should be enough. It isn't right now, and that's on Bush, Obama and congress - but they can end that pretty fast, hopefully. Clinton and Kaine saying they need a new authorization is one of the biggest reasons alone to vote for her. I question it for those reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said: I question it for those reasons. It is, IMO, the single biggest threat to the US democratic process that exists. Being in a 15-year state of war against any and every country that remotely can be related to Afghanistan is an absurd mockery of the system. I get why Obama has done it, but the process is wrong, wrong, wrong, and needs to be ended. My fear is that it will be ended but will not be replaced with good authorization and the US will simply not be able to intercede in anything for a while, but that is probably not that horrible of an outcome compared to unlimited unjustified war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 I see what y'all mean about the thread title. It reminds me of James Petigru's quote, "South Carolina... too small for a republic... too large for an asylum." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 7 minutes ago, Kalbear said: It is, IMO, the single biggest threat to the US democratic process that exists. Being in a 15-year state of war against any and every country that remotely can be related to Afghanistan is an absurd mockery of the system. I get why Obama has done it, but the process is wrong, wrong, wrong, and needs to be ended. My fear is that it will be ended but will not be replaced with good authorization and the US will simply not be able to intercede in anything for a while, but that is probably not that horrible of an outcome compared to unlimited unjustified war. I'd prefer not being able to intercede vs. unlimited war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 4 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said: I'd prefer not being able to intercede vs. unlimited war. I would too. I'm in favor of just intercession, but I'm willing to take doing nothing over being able to do anything, ever, without congressional approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Kalbear, We need a Congress with the balls to defund a conflict they didn't approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Kalbear, We need a Congress with the balls to defund a conflict they didn't approve. I'm fine with them simply voting for authorizing the actual conflict. That would likely be more palatable to most congresspeople and the current president. But actually DO it. Don't just passively accept that it is still happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 30, 2016 Share Posted September 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Kalbear, We need a Congress with the balls to defund a conflict they didn't approve. You need a Congress capable of doing anything. The current situation exists because Congress won't take responsibility for basically anything and so the executive has scooped up the power because shit still needs to get done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted September 30, 2016 Author Share Posted September 30, 2016 55 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I see what y'all mean about the thread title. It reminds me of James Petigru's quote, "South Carolina... too small for a republic... too large for an asylum." I originally wrote out the Supreme Court, but the spacing looked bad. But this begs the more important question Scot; should we keep your state in the union if it means we'll have a dictator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.