Play Nice 47th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 20: Here we go again!

[Gethelred]

Mod Notice
* Thread monitored actively. User who drag it down will be removed

Specifically: reference to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) and its counterpart 'Trumpanzee' or anything similar will no longer be allowed.

Personal attacks are also to be kept to a minimum.

Just a reminder, even if it hasn't come up for a few pages and y'all should know this stuff by now:

This thread is not about Covid, lockdowns, or vaccines. It is about Donald Trump. While Trump was in office during the pandemic and his response to Covid is relevant, there are pertinent threads for you to post your opinions on those things in.

It might also do with reminding a few that when you post on the SRP, you are responsible for backing up/verifying your claims to fact. What this means is that you will be asked time to time to support your claims with evidence, to ensure that this forum is as free of misinfomation as we can make it.

Do not post conspiracy theories on this forum. We have an entire other forum for that.

Thanks all.

As always, please submit ideas for the thread title by tagging Gethelred! We're looking for something new to match the new thread!

USA - 2024 US Presidential Election: Trump vs Harris (pt II)

Continued from Part 1 - https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/2024-us-presidential-election-trump-vs-harris.1383317/

www.bigfooty.com

USA - Kamala Harris Concedes. God Help America

www.bigfooty.com

< - Trump 19 is back there.

 

[QuietB]

My fellow Americans

A speech for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in the event of an election outcome

www.themonthly.com.au

 

[Vassp]

Leftists don't like CNN. They are left of MAGA, but so is Mitch McConnell.

Also this "leftist" host has this background https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-cnn-anchor-boyfriend-fight-donald-trump.html

She is just a hack. Tbh Ive not watched the video, but just disagreeing on your premise. Couldn't really give a shit what she asked him or what he said in response.

The end of the Video is the best, it's where the lawyer said the media has bias, and there should really be no bias and straight reporting with no agenda, this is how things should be = for both sides.

Just to quote him, "Watch one station it says its sunny, watch another station and it says its raining".
This is how most news is at the moment and its a disgrace.
Then networks wonder why people are looking elsewhere.

....and while im on my rant, Dutton wants to control and ban online discussion HIS TEAM DEEMS dangerous with possible jail time. this cancel culture is the poison, not the people talking about their concerns.

 

[magpie_marty]

Here's one of many:

We want to be vigilant about what might be on the horizon -- what is out there in other places. We want to be careful how we deal with it (coronavirus). But we do want to say to people, come to Chinatown. Here we are, again, careful, safe, and come join us." 24 Feb 2020.

Pelosi Tours San Francisco's Chinatown To Quell Coronavirus Fears

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi walked through San Francisco's Chinatown District Monday, attempting to quell fears about the current outbreak of the coronavirus that has kept customers out of shops and restaurants and tourists away from the streets.

www.cbsnews.com

I agree it was a stupid thing to do,
Then again Trump was holding rallies?
All over the country even the white house.
When Corona was wild.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

I agree it was a stupid thing to do,
Then again Trump was holding rallies?
All over the country even the white house.
When Corona was wild.

Should change the party name to the reactionary party
That's the Democrats problem
During the election build up they continually reacted to everything the republicans did
They never lead with a strong future vision.
As ceaser once said "reactionaries die 1st".

 

[stefcep]

So you want that expanded?

You don't want direct democracy essentially. You just want whoever is richer and more powerful to be able to have an even greater say than they do now. I don't think that is good, you do. Agree to disagree.

There is a balance. You can't have densely populated regions of relatively small land size dictate the laws of the land when they own so little of the land. On the other hand you can't have very sparsely populated areas dictate the laws of the land to people that vastly outnumber them either. Hence the EC.

Which is why the claims that H Clinton beat Trump because she won the popular vote is nonsense.

Thankfully Trump holds both Titles so he's now Mr Undisputed King, Emporer and Czar of the Once-Divided States of America.

 

[stefcep]

Haha so it’s only for “red land.”

Not for the largest food producing state in the country.

A farmer in California gets less say than someone who lives on the 13th floor in Mobile, Alabama.

Huh?

California gets the most EC votes of any State. You think they should have more? Given their land mass and population its about right.

 

[Blue1980]

There is a balance. You can't have densely populated regions of relatively small land size dictate the laws of the land when they own so little of the land. On the other hand you can't have very sparsely populated areas dictate the laws of the land to people that vastly outnumber them either. Hence the EC.

Which is why the claims tha H Clinton beat Trump because she won the popular vote is nonsense.

Thankfully Trump holds both Titles so he's now Mr Undisputed King, Emporer and Czar of the Once-Divided States of America.

Yes, you want it tilted in favour of the rich and powerful of who gets a say, essentially.

It’s not 1 to 1 but more land you own the wealthier you are. Also what happens to renters or homeless people, just ban them from voting?

 

[Blue1980]

Huh?

California gets the most EC votes of any State. You think they should have more? Given their land mass and population its about right.

I thought you wanted it on an individual basis, but what you are advocating for is for the EC to be skewed more heavily to less densely populated states?

 

[stefcep]

Yes, you want it tilted in favour of the rich and powerful of who gets a say, essentially.

It’s not 1 to 1 but more land you own the wealthier you are. Also what happens to renters or homeless people, just ban them from voting?

Like I said at the start, without land, there is no nation. Always was, and always will be the case that landholders will have proportionally more power in nations that are unions of different States with different land masses and demographics.

 

[stefcep]

I thought you wanted it on an individual basis, but what you are advocating for is for the EC to be skewed more heavily to less densely populated states?

Not quite. There is a balance but...all votes are not equal, and never have been.

 

[stefcep]

Yes, you want it tilted in favour of the rich and powerful of who gets a say, essentially.

It’s not 1 to 1 but more land you own the wealthier you are. Also what happens to renters or homeless people, just ban them from voting?

No I don't want that and that is not happens, but it is fact that smaller populations on larger land masses DO get proportionally more power to decide elections because they own more of the land of the nation.

I'm not sure why this is a surprise.

 

[stefcep]

Yes, you want it tilted in favour of the rich and powerful of who gets a say, essentially.

It’s not 1 to 1 but more land you own the wealthier you are. Also what happens to renters or homeless people, just ban them from voting?

That depends on where they live when they vote. If its rural, their vote counts as much as other rural voters. If urban it counts as little as other voters.

 

[Blue1980]

That depends on where they live when they vote. If its rural, their vote counts as much as other rural voters. If urban it counts as little as other voters.

So you’ve spent a lot of time saying you’re happy with the current electoral college?

Seems you’ve done the weave.

 

[JackOutback]

Imagine wanting a return to the time of land barons. What next? Slavery.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

 

[deck]

That depends on where they live when they vote. If its rural, their vote counts as much as other rural voters. If urban it counts as little as other voters.

You clearly aren't aware that the highly populated states do have rural areas. Also the lowly populated ones also have urban areas. And no the votes don't have a different weighting within in a state.

 

[Maggie5]

Bad call by Pelosi, but it wasn't considered a huge deal in February was it? I cant recall exact dates now. Trump was publicly denying it was an issue a fair while after that, wasn't he?

Where is the racism accusation?

In early February, Trump told Woodward that the virus was contagious, airborne and far “more deadly than even your strenuous flus,” but played it down.

Exert from Woodward book.

And play it down he did. In public comments in February alone, Trump claimed the United States had the virus contained, predicted that 15 cases would soon become zero and said, “One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”
The president admitted to Woodward on March 19 that he hid what he really knew about the virus.

“I wanted to always play it down,” Trump said. “I still like playing it down, because I don't want to create a panic."

 

[Episode IV]

My views here are too long and varied to fully state in a single post; suffice to say that I think since the end of WW2 society is best depicted as a struggle between the working classes - who for the first time in history achieved a level of power and position that they had never obtained previously - and the ownership classes, who have spent the entire time since the New Deal and the end of the war chipping away at different components of that coalition and worker's rights to let them return things to the way they were. Keynesian economics gives way to neoliberalism in the 1970's not because it successfully demonstrated its failure but because it's what the wealthy wanted; civil rights movements taper out and are viciously controlled and repressed whilst active, their messages diluted and twisted to establishment ends once gone. The media goes from believing they have an imperative to inform to deliberately seeking to control and drive policy because the owners want to control what people say and believe; Manufacturing Consent and all that.

Well, there we go. You're significantly further left than I thought... which is merely an observation, not an attack.
I enjoy reading Chomsky, for the record, but I have some issues with the scope of his observations at times.

As such, trying to depict the flaws within a capitalist democracy as 'overly cumbersome and unwieldy' as being due to the minority groups is - frankly - making the same error that sees some of the working poor attribute their loss of income and prestige to immigrants 'taking their jobs' when the problem is the ownership classes moved that job overseas.

I wasn't depicting a capitalist democracy as being such - I was asking at which point it might occur, and how minority groups (becoming more influential) contribute toward a lack of political cohesion - not "due to".
I also think that there are more than a few (people) who do not value cohesion at all, and for whom democracy is merely a means to an end.

Probably best I leave that there, before that Red Mist makes it's presence known (that's a wordplay joke).

The problem is that society is in a slow decline into plutocracy and capitalist feudalism - some more, some less - whilst having the trappings of the social democracies they used to be hollowed out and/or slowly being stripped away.

Cynical, but I don't disagree. I think a lot of political opinion ends up with exhortations to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I share the same concerns, and my thinking can also get a little apocalyptic at times.
I've been around and aware for a while now, and I know how different Australia is, to... well, when I were a lad.

There is a quote which comes to mind - "We do not see things as they are; We see them as we are". Anais Nin, the Talmud, whatever the origin.

How do these minority groups within society have both so much power that they bring democracy to its knees yet so little power that they are not treated in a parity or better by the majority?

In short, because that situation is in flux.

The "or better" bit is a tad concerning.

 

[magpie_marty]

Should change the party name to the reactionary party
That's the Democrats problem
During the election build up they continually reacted to everything the republicans did
They never lead with a strong future vision.
As ceaser once said "reactionaries die 1st".

You just went totally of topic my comment was about COVID,
Trump put VP Pence in charge,
Then the media gave Pence a lot of attention,
Soon after that Trump was in in charge of COVID,
Suggesting Bleach etc

 

[Blue1980]

Imagine wanting a return to the time of land barons. What next? Slavery.

My favourite part was the back tracking, and going "oh well the electoral college is tilted enough, sorry by bad, carry on"

 

[Gethelred]

Well, there we go. You're significantly further left than I thought... which is merely an observation, not an attack.
I enjoy reading Chomsky, for the record, but I have some issues with the scope of his observations at times.

I wasn't depicting a capitalist democracy as being such - I was asking at which point it might occur, and how minority groups (becoming more influential) contribute toward a lack of political cohesion - not "due to".
I also think that there are more than a few (people) who do not value cohesion at all, and for whom democracy is merely a means to an end.

Probably best I leave that there, before that Red Mist makes it's presence known (that's a wordplay joke).


Cynical, but I don't disagree. I think a lot of political opinion ends up with exhortations to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I share the same concerns, and my thinking can also get a little apocalyptic at times.
I've been around and aware for a while now, and I know how different Australia is, to... well, when I were a lad.

There is a quote which comes to mind - "We do not see things as they are; We see them as we are". Anais Nin, the Talmud, whatever the origin.

I'm going to leave the rest of it to one side not because it's unworthy of discussion but because I'm not in the appropriate frame of mind.

I'll pick some of this up at another time.

In short, because that situation is in flux. The "or better" bit is a tad concerning.

"Or better" is a consequence of depicting minorities as having more power than the majority, which is a mistake an awful lot of people make.

You mightn't, but that's the consequence of speaking online, in a written context. Meaning gets lost, or inferred where it isn't because the person opposite was clumzy with tone.

I'm not particularly clumzy usually, but that's what I meant.

 

[QuietB]

Again, court cases dont mean that much do they? Find me the target and ill attach the crime...very famous saying.

If you havent already guessed I dont see the courts or justice system as the be all and end all in justice.

They can be swayed many different ways.

so CNN and CNBC are your news source then?

The judiciary is about the only arm of democracy that still has a fighting chance of working.

But I guess your “gut” is more accurate.

 

[QuietB]

Imagine wanting a return to the time of land barons. What next? Slavery.

We are already there - and it has nothing to do with land.

 

[magpie_marty]

Huh?

California gets the most EC votes of any State. You think they should have more? Given their land mass and population its about right.

CA actually ranks very high in terms of wealth and education.

 

[sdfc]

CA actually ranks very high in terms of wealth and education.

So that means they should get more votes than they do?