F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's funny. Trump complains about Facebook, and Twitter censoring him. But he outright bullies, insults, and slanders people all the time via Twitter. I've seen people get in trouble, or banned for less. If anything, Trump's getting preferential treatment.
Of course he is. But that does not make for a good narrative for him.
 
I heard this clip of Trump talking about Brazil, which he thinks could maybe be a NATO ally someday even though that's impossible (but hey, f*** facts and all that pesky crap). Anyway as is typical when he's praising his fellow fascist dictators, he needed to take a swipe at all previous U.S. presidents, claiming that Brazil has never had as good of a relationship with the U.S. as it does now, unlike it did with his predecessors.

I can't remember if I've said this before, but you know that line John C. Reilly has in Guardians of the Galaxy where he says he doesn't believe anyone is "100 percent a dick"? WE FOUND ONE. Trump is, unequivocally, 100 percent a dick. Someone should chisel that on his grave when he dies.
 
(Personally, I don’t know that the Electoral College should be done away with altogether, I do think it needs an overhaul though)

The concept is good. It just needs reworking. Maybe it needs to not be a 'winner take all' situation. And we should make it proportional. If it's supposed to be by population, then California should have 200 electoral votes, not 55. There's no reason why low-population states should be over represented in my opinion. At least not to that degree.

I think adjusting the electoral college could be a good idea, but it'd be best if it went along with other changes, that make it easier to vote: campaign finance reform, a voting holiday, automatic voter registration, and open source voting machines that come with paper records.
 
There's something to the argument about the tyranny of the majority. If I lived in Nebraska, I'd be worried that my state is going to get shortchanged, because it's not as populated... while it still provides the country with a lot of good. I can appreciate that concern. We just have to be reasonable about it.
 
There's something to the argument about the tyranny of the majority. If I lived in Nebraska, I'd be worried that my state is going to get shortchanged, because it's not as populated... while it still provides the country with a lot of good. I can appreciate that concern. We just have to be reasonable about it.
That is where the house and senate come in. But the idea that living in very specific, less populated areas of the US gives you more power just feels insane to me. Especially when you consider those places aren't exactly a good example of the make up of the US.

Also, isn't that exactly what he Senate is for? Every state gets an equal amount of senators. Equal power.
 
Yeah, I hear you... Senate is already there to counterbalance the power of overpopulated States. The House is represented by population... problem already solved.

And it really shouldn't matter. The President doesn't have a lot of constitutional power over domestic issues. The office is meant to be the leader of our foreign policy.

But in today's world, in which the President has all kinds of powers and is basically the guiding stick for whatever actually gets done... I'd be hesitant to go with a full popular vote when it comes to deciding the presidency.

I think this is a great opportunity for compromise. We can still pad the political power of low population states, but also work to make the electoral college more or less representative of the American electorate.

I mean... think if you live in Iowa. Your whole economy is built on corn and various other crops. But since you don't have much say in how the Presidency is elected, the administration doesn't care much about your state and pushes to end corn subsidies. In my own home state of Nevada, maybe the President decides to dump nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain for foreign policy reasons, and Nevadans are like.... darn... the President has the say, and he/she doesn't really care about us. I imagine some could see that as a good thing. We shouldn't have to cater to the needs of the states. The States should cater to the needs of the country.

At bare minimum, there would have to be a transition period. Give people time to acclimate to the idea.
 
I say, if you're going to go after something, go after political gerrymandering. That crap should be illegal, and I think it's a much easier sell. We should be redrawing those maps ASAP.
 
You just know that Trump has gone up to Kellyanne Conway and asked her to divorce her husband.

Oh yeah.
But this is a nice way to show Kellyanne's character, will she keep her mouth shut or defend her husband...or side with Trump.
 
Do they have children? I can only imagine what that would do to a kid's psyche when your mom gives an interview, siding with the guy who just called your dad a "loser and a husband from hell."
 
Oh my God.


There is no bottom.
tumblr_n6ooa7sgQJ1s3hgsno1_250.gif
 
What a moron. What an absolute vile, pathetic, POS. It doesn't matter if you don't like John McCain. He's dead. Dragging his name through the mud for two minutes and then remarking about how you didn't like him anyways is disgusting. Go to hell, Trump.
 
I always figured the biggest problem with the Electoral College is that a candidate will win the entire state's electoral votes, even if they only won the popular vote by 1. Wouldn't it be better to divvy up the electoral votes by the percentage of actual votes received?

For example, Florida has 29 electoral votes. If the voting in Florida is split almost evenly between two candidates, the winning candidate should get 15 electoral votes (or whatever it works out to be) and the other gets 14.

Or maybe it would throw the whole system out of whack. Or it would make the end results more contentious because they'd be based on having very accurate voter counts.
 
Something feels off about all of this to me. It reminds me of Trump's earlier tricks, where he purposely would steer the conversation away by luring people into other controversies. Controversies that seemed bad, but were not as bad as what lurked around the corner.

And then he said today that the Mueller report should be public.... something he's been showing a lot of anxiety about up til now. He's repeatedly mentioned Barr whenever the report comes up. What's going on in his head right now? Is he practicing reverse psychology to cover something up? Has Barr given him some insight that Mueller won't be prosecuting for "collusion?"

It's possible that something big is coming our way, and Trump is using McCain as a convenient scapegoat. This falls under the "I'm not political correct" scandal pile, which Trump seems very comfortable with. So the whole thing feels fishy to me. Something is up.
 
Considering Rosenstein is suddenly not leaving, with no announced date of leaving, when his replacement was supposed to have hearings next month, that could lend a few theories as to what is going on. It could be that Barr, much like Whitaker, saw what Mueller had and wanted nothing to do with it.
 
Considering Rosenstein is suddenly not leaving, with no announced date of leaving, when his replacement was supposed to have hearings next month, that could lend a few theories as to what is going on. It could be that Barr, much like Whitaker, saw what Mueller had and wanted nothing to do with it.
How so?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"