Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
His behaviors are not that bad, and by the standards of one of the financial elite, he actually seems to be a pretty upright citizen. We have an audio clip about grabbing women (and his personal life has been tumultuous but we're comparing him to Bill Clinton, c'mon...) and some allegations about... stuff? ... from the 90s and earlier.
We have the audio clips, and numerous court cases... yeah, I know many were thrown out..... And even his more public comments are just so skeevy and pervy. And then I can drag in the hundreds and thousands of small businessmen who did contract work for the guy, and weren't paid in accordance with their contracts, in some cases undoubtedly driving them out of business.
I honestly do not care one tiny bit who he dips his wick into... so long as it's consensual, which is why I don't really care for the comparison to Slick Willie Clinton. Both of their famous cheating instances all seem to be consensual. The problem I have, as mentioned earlier, are the number of pervy comments, and potentially illegal behavior. I have a daughter, and while I certainly didn't like or care for Clinton, THIS is what we get? A guy who shows by his words and his actions that men can do pretty much whatever they want to women? Feth that.
A) What was the last date prior to this one at which america was great. That is if trump is about to make things great again they must have been great some previous point. When was this?
B) Have there been any other periods where america was not great and if so, when did they span?
C) Was america great in the period spanning March 4th, 1829 to April 12th 1861?
What a time to be alive! Hopefully Hillary is sharpening an old toothbrush in preparation for prison. (wishful thinking of course)
A few of his policies will be implementable, and the sillier ones (the wall, for example) will not. I think we'll end up in a good position.
Immigration: It's not about vetting the Muslim immigrants coming in through traditional channels - rather, it's about not bringing hordes of migrants into this country. Hillary wanted over half a million of them in her first term and cited Merkel as a great figure. No thanks, Hilldog.
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
Citizenship: I predict a 180 at this point when he realizes that he can't "round them up" - an accelerated path to citizenship or something of the sort, solidifying their vote in 2020.
Obamacare: Kill it...kill it with fire.
These are the issues that are important for me. I read an analysis by a staunch Dem friend of mine who predicted this over a year ago. His thesis was essentially that Trump will be elected simply because the Left has bullied conservatives and moderates (especially White moderates) to the point where it's impossible to admit in public that you're voting for Trump. I've seen tons of Trump signs defaced in this area - not a single Hillary sign touched. The Left can blame themselves for this, but they should really be celebrating, because we're going to make America great again.
Heh, well said, have an exalt! Some specific points that I could see coming and would welcome;
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
Ironically many gun control advocates have proposed exactly what many 2nd A folks would welcome: treating gun carry licenses like driver's licenses. National reciprocity, the vacating of idiosyncratic local rules, a 50 state solution.
Immigration: It's not about vetting the Muslim immigrants coming in through traditional channels - rather, it's about not bringing hordes of migrants into this country. Hillary wanted over half a million of them in her first term and cited Merkel as a great figure. No thanks, Hilldog.
Enforcement of immigration law is one of the great essentials, above and beyond the questions of Middle East refugees, for achieving much of the prosperity agenda. Like the legalization of illegals, simply making it clear that the laws will be enforced will have, I think history shows, a salutary effect on the problem.
It is probably just because we're in different locales and run in different circles but non of the gun owners among my friends and relatives or the casual acquaintances I know at the private range I belong to, would be supportive of a federal concealed carry license. The federal license would require legislation that would involve representatives in congress from states that are extremely hostile to concealed carry permits and gun ownership in general and that's not good and that's on top of the fact that some median ccw requirements would make obtaining a permit more difficult to many residents of shall issue states even if it makes permits slightly easier to get in may issue states and somewhat attainable in the handful of states that actively oppose it. Some of my state's gun laws could be better but on the whole they're pretty decent and I want my state carry permit to remain a state license protected and defined by my state constitution. I don't need the federal govt to come with some additional regulations to solve a nonexistent problem. The biggest proponents I know of federal ccw permits are people that live in blue states and have virtually zero chance of currently obtaining one from their state. That's a problem that needs to be addressed at the state level not from the feds.
A) What was the last date prior to this one at which america was great. That is if trump is about to make things great again they must have been great some previous point. When was this?
B) Have there been any other periods where america was not great and if so, when did they span?
C) Was america great in the period spanning March 4th, 1829 to April 12th 1861?
D) If America was great at some period in the past, for whom was it great?
The Republicans only took Trump when they had no one else. They were clearly against him in the beginning and when he won the Primary.
What matters for the main election is how they acted during the main election campaign. And the majority of the Republican Party clearly supported him. Sure, a few here and there deserted, especially when it really looked quite bad for him - rats trying to leave the ship, as they say -, but the majority? They stayed.
So, you can try to make it up as much as you can, this is the reality; Trump won with the Republican Party mostly supporting him for the main election. And he wouldn't have been able to win alone. He was made as the Republican candidate at the end of the Republican primaries. And he won as such.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 17:54:08
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
He's been a "huge supporter of 2A rights" since right about the time he started running. He's a new york billionaire through and through. I'd be shocked if we see XO import bans removed that he can end at the stroke of a pen, I'd eat a plate of Meekrob if anything actually changed with the NFA. Last time Republicans had control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, they did nothing on these fronts even with a supermajority, except stand by and allow the federal AWB to end, an act of inaction rather than action.
Yeah, this one seriously boggles my mind.
His appeal to gun owners was so ridiculously pandering it made my head hurt. He doesn't love us gun owners; he holds us in contempt because he knows so many of us will blindly follow if he hits just a few of the correct code words. He was completely for AWBs until he realized he could denounce them and get votes.
People loved to give Clinton gak for flip flopping but, as is the case in hyper-partisanship, turn a blind eye to the most egregious cases on their side of the aisle.
Aye, Clinton was no fan of the 2A and everyone knew that, but for people to think Trump is some major long time entrenched 2A supporter is in stark contrast to his origins and past that can only be attributed to hyper partisanship, and expecting anything to proactive to be done regarding the NFA is almost certainly a pipe dream.
At absolute best, we might get the 2014 Russian import ban repealed, but I'd be shocked if even that happened.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Iron_Captain wrote:I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
I thought he was going to gloat about his victory and spew some more crazy stuff, but he actually said really nice things.
Also, the kid in the background trying to not fall asleep was hilarious.
I was also surprised with his graciousness in victory.
It reminded me of when a pair participants of some combat sport (primarily Boxers or MMA fighters) has a long buildup to a fight. Talking trash all the way and getting increasingly more vicious. Then once the fight is done it's hugs and respect.
Now, I have a hard time seeing "Humble-Trump" lasting too long, but one night is still one night longer than I expected
Co'tor Shas wrote: So she won tge popular but lost the EC? It's crazy that this has happened twice in the last two decades. You'd almost think that it's ans outated system thwt no longer works...
That's how federalism works.
You could mitigate the chance of it happening by introducing some Leveling seats a.k.k Adjustment seats. A group of electors distributed with the whole nation as one district, in order for the allocation of electors to match the popular vote. Such systems exist in Scandinavia (and I believe in Germany) in order to retain local representation, but still having the overall result conform with the overall popular votes. In Norway recently though, despite the Adjustment seats, the winning coalition got more seats with slightly less votes.
Good luck on making any changes to the American voting system though. As I understand, there's a metric f-ton of red tape and qualified majorities (unanimous decision by all states even?) needed.
All that presupposes that the idea that the election results have to reflect the popular vote is the correct and necessary idea. We don't need that reform because the popular vote and the electoral vote don't need to match. What you're basically arguing for is that we need to award bonus electoral points for margin of victory which is completely unnecessary. Hillary won California, she got all their electoral votes, whether she won by one vote or one million doesn't matter. More populous states have more electoral votes the system is already weighted in the favor of populous states we don't need to increase that favoritism even more. There are states where generations of people have never seen a presidential candidate in person because the states don't have enough electoral votes to be an important swing state, we don't need to devalue those states even further. Most often the candidate that wins the electoral vote will also win the popular vote by virtue of winning a lot of states, on some occasions a candidate will win the electoral college without winning the or popular vote based on the margin of victory in some states and that's ok, it doesn't change the outcome in states and it doesn't change the fact that populous states have more electoral importance than sparsely populated states. There is no problem to fix.
It would be a way of ensuing votes across the election is more evenly weighted.
How is the system weighted in favour of the populous states when they receive proportionally less electors per capita? If anything it's the other way around.
California for example has roughly one elector per 160k votes and Texas only one elector per over 200k votes. Meanwhile Alaska is only around 80k voters per elector and Hawaii an elecor per 100k voters.
We don't vote nationally we vote by state. More populous states have more electoral votes than less populous states. The electoral college doesn't award electors based on raw population it awards electors to states based on the number of congressional representatives per state. The number of congressional representatives per state is a adjusted every 10 years when the national census is taken. Electoral votes are then adjusted to reflect any changes in congressional representation. The proportional weight of California over Wyoming is the same on election day as it is on any given day in Congress and the running of the federal govt. You're advocating that we need to award extra weight to California over Wyoming on election night because for some reason California should have a greater voice on election night than it does in regular federal governance. There's no compelling reason for that. Populous states are treated fairly on election night just as they are treated fairly in Congress.
The vote is state-by state indeed. But the President is given a mandate over the entire nation, so I do believe it would be better to have the vote be at least partly nationally based.
Well, that's kinda my point. I disagree that the voters in populous states are treated fairly since they don't get the same representation per capita as less populous states. Also having no electors distributed according to the popular vote leads to the disproportional importance of those votes cast in the swing-states.
I guess there's not much point in keeping this discussion going though as it was just an off-hand remark from my part. I know it'll probably never be changed in my lifetime, and It's not like I can vote in the US elections anyway.
If you think states like California are treated unfairly on election night because of their ratio of electors to state residents then you're saying that California is also treated unfairly in the House of Representatives in Congress every single day because the number of electors California gets is equal to the number of Representatives they get in the House which is determined by the census.
Well, that's a well founded and nuanced view of a reality. Not our reality, but I'm sure it's reality somewhere...
It's indeed not a Right Wing reality, I admit it.
Hehe, I know, you live in that world where Venezuela is a workers paradise and soft power has transformed the middle east. So at least your reality touches ours on one point.
Sarouan wrote: Still, Red Team won, and you will note both Obama and Hillary actually congratulate Trump for his victory. No call for rigged election, no snob, just playing fair.
Bet you already forgot how Trump reacted when it was a bit bad for him not so long ago?
A) What was the last date prior to this one at which america was great. That is if trump is about to make things great again they must have been great some previous point. When was this?
B) Have there been any other periods where america was not great and if so, when did they span?
C) Was america great in the period spanning March 4th, 1829 to April 12th 1861?
D) If America was great at some period in the past, for whom was it great?
The Republicans only took Trump when they had no one else. They were clearly against him in the beginning and when he won the Primary.
What matters for the main election is how they acted during the main election campaign. And the majority of the Republican Party clearly supported him. Sure, a few here and there deserted, especially when it really looked quite bad for him - rats trying to leave the ship, as they say -, but the majority? They stayed.
So, you can try to make it up as much as you can, this is the reality; Trump won with the Republican Party mostly supporting him for the main election. And he wouldn't have been able to win alone. He was made as the Republican candidate at the end of the Republican primaries. And he won as such.
He won because PEOPLE voted for him. It's not the Republican war machine, he reached deep into people and struck the chord that rang with them the most: their anger. He fed and grew off their anger and hate, and people ate it up.
I'm no big fan of Republicans, but a lot of Republicans hated him, some still do. They went along with him when it was clear he would sweep the country.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 17:58:54
What a time to be alive! Hopefully Hillary is sharpening an old toothbrush in preparation for prison. (wishful thinking of course)
A few of his policies will be implementable, and the sillier ones (the wall, for example) will not. I think we'll end up in a good position.
Immigration: It's not about vetting the Muslim immigrants coming in through traditional channels - rather, it's about not bringing hordes of migrants into this country. Hillary wanted over half a million of them in her first term and cited Merkel as a great figure. No thanks, Hilldog.
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
Citizenship: I predict a 180 at this point when he realizes that he can't "round them up" - an accelerated path to citizenship or something of the sort, solidifying their vote in 2020.
Obamacare: Kill it...kill it with fire.
These are the issues that are important for me. I read an analysis by a staunch Dem friend of mine who predicted this over a year ago. His thesis was essentially that Trump will be elected simply because the Left has bullied conservatives and moderates (especially White moderates) to the point where it's impossible to admit in public that you're voting for Trump. I've seen tons of Trump signs defaced in this area - not a single Hillary sign touched. The Left can blame themselves for this, but they should really be celebrating, because we're going to make America great again.
Heh, well said, have an exalt! Some specific points that I could see coming and would welcome;
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
Ironically many gun control advocates have proposed exactly what many 2nd A folks would welcome: treating gun carry licenses like driver's licenses. National reciprocity, the vacating of idiosyncratic local rules, a 50 state solution.
Immigration: It's not about vetting the Muslim immigrants coming in through traditional channels - rather, it's about not bringing hordes of migrants into this country. Hillary wanted over half a million of them in her first term and cited Merkel as a great figure. No thanks, Hilldog.
Enforcement of immigration law is one of the great essentials, above and beyond the questions of Middle East refugees, for achieving much of the prosperity agenda. Like the legalization of illegals, simply making it clear that the laws will be enforced will have, I think history shows, a salutary effect on the problem.
It is probably just because we're in different locales and run in different circles but non of the gun owners among my friends and relatives or the casual acquaintances I know at the private range I belong to, would be supportive of a federal concealed carry license. The federal license would require legislation that would involve representatives in congress from states that are extremely hostile to concealed carry permits and gun ownership in general and that's not good and that's on top of the fact that some median ccw requirements would make obtaining a permit more difficult to many residents of shall issue states even if it makes permits slightly easier to get in may issue states and somewhat attainable in the handful of states that actively oppose it. Some of my state's gun laws could be better but on the whole they're pretty decent and I want my state carry permit to remain a state license protected and defined by my state constitution. I don't need the federal govt to come with some additional regulations to solve a nonexistent problem. The biggest proponents I know of federal ccw permits are people that live in blue states and have virtually zero chance of currently obtaining one from their state. That's a problem that needs to be addressed at the state level not from the feds.
You seem to have misunderstood me: I mean a situation analogous to driver's licenses (which I said). Not a distinct legal entity such as a Federal Carry license, but providing that all states must recognize the licenses of other states.
With due respect, I think you may also be underplaying the effects our patchwork legal system is having: being able to get into your car in one state with your legally carried firearm and drive wherever you want is a big deal, and here in PA we have seen several innocent people snatched up when they ended up in NJ without knowing that the state's draconian gun laws did not respect their PA license.
While we all want a minimum of Federal intrusion, I see the situation analogous to Federal enforcement of Voting rights.
A) What was the last date prior to this one at which america was great. That is if trump is about to make things great again they must have been great some previous point. When was this?
B) Have there been any other periods where america was not great and if so, when did they span?
C) Was america great in the period spanning March 4th, 1829 to April 12th 1861?
D) If America was great at some period in the past, for whom was it great?
July 16, 1969.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Trump ran on stronger immigration policy, anti-globalist trade/better deals for America, and an American First/World Second or repudiation of the Apology tour that Obama undertook.
These are the things Trump was for. Hillary couldn't codify a list this simple and forever remained 'just' anti-Trump.
A) What was the last date prior to this one at which america was great. That is if trump is about to make things great again they must have been great some previous point. When was this?
B) Have there been any other periods where america was not great and if so, when did they span?
C) Was america great in the period spanning March 4th, 1829 to April 12th 1861?
D) If America was great at some period in the past, for whom was it great?
July 16, 1969.
Well, that settles it, time to send someone to Mars!
Iron_Captain wrote:I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
I thought he was going to gloat about his victory and spew some more crazy stuff, but he actually said really nice things.
Also, the kid in the background trying to not fall asleep was hilarious.
I was also surprised with his graciousness in victory.
It reminded me of when a pair participants of some combat sport (primarily Boxers or MMA fighters) has a long buildup to a fight. Talking trash all the way and getting increasingly more vicious. Then once the fight is done it's hugs and respect.
Now, I have a hard time seeing "Humble-Trump" lasting too long, but one night is still one night longer than I expected
Co'tor Shas wrote: So she won tge popular but lost the EC? It's crazy that this has happened twice in the last two decades. You'd almost think that it's ans outated system thwt no longer works...
That's how federalism works.
You could mitigate the chance of it happening by introducing some Leveling seats a.k.k Adjustment seats. A group of electors distributed with the whole nation as one district, in order for the allocation of electors to match the popular vote. Such systems exist in Scandinavia (and I believe in Germany) in order to retain local representation, but still having the overall result conform with the overall popular votes. In Norway recently though, despite the Adjustment seats, the winning coalition got more seats with slightly less votes.
Good luck on making any changes to the American voting system though. As I understand, there's a metric f-ton of red tape and qualified majorities (unanimous decision by all states even?) needed.
All that presupposes that the idea that the election results have to reflect the popular vote is the correct and necessary idea. We don't need that reform because the popular vote and the electoral vote don't need to match. What you're basically arguing for is that we need to award bonus electoral points for margin of victory which is completely unnecessary. Hillary won California, she got all their electoral votes, whether she won by one vote or one million doesn't matter. More populous states have more electoral votes the system is already weighted in the favor of populous states we don't need to increase that favoritism even more. There are states where generations of people have never seen a presidential candidate in person because the states don't have enough electoral votes to be an important swing state, we don't need to devalue those states even further. Most often the candidate that wins the electoral vote will also win the popular vote by virtue of winning a lot of states, on some occasions a candidate will win the electoral college without winning the or popular vote based on the margin of victory in some states and that's ok, it doesn't change the outcome in states and it doesn't change the fact that populous states have more electoral importance than sparsely populated states. There is no problem to fix.
It would be a way of ensuing votes across the election is more evenly weighted.
How is the system weighted in favour of the populous states when they receive proportionally less electors per capita? If anything it's the other way around.
California for example has roughly one elector per 160k votes and Texas only one elector per over 200k votes. Meanwhile Alaska is only around 80k voters per elector and Hawaii an elecor per 100k voters.
We don't vote nationally we vote by state. More populous states have more electoral votes than less populous states. The electoral college doesn't award electors based on raw population it awards electors to states based on the number of congressional representatives per state. The number of congressional representatives per state is a adjusted every 10 years when the national census is taken. Electoral votes are then adjusted to reflect any changes in congressional representation. The proportional weight of California over Wyoming is the same on election day as it is on any given day in Congress and the running of the federal govt. You're advocating that we need to award extra weight to California over Wyoming on election night because for some reason California should have a greater voice on election night than it does in regular federal governance. There's no compelling reason for that. Populous states are treated fairly on election night just as they are treated fairly in Congress.
The vote is state-by state indeed. But the President is given a mandate over the entire nation, so I do believe it would be better to have the vote be at least partly nationally based.
Well, that's kinda my point. I disagree that the voters in populous states are treated fairly since they don't get the same representation per capita as less populous states. Also having no electors distributed according to the popular vote leads to the disproportional importance of those votes cast in the swing-states.
I guess there's not much point in keeping this discussion going though as it was just an off-hand remark from my part. I know it'll probably never be changed in my lifetime, and It's not like I can vote in the US elections anyway.
If you think states like California are treated unfairly on election night because of their ratio of electors to state residents then you're saying that California is also treated unfairly in the House of Representatives in Congress every single day because the number of electors California gets is equal to the number of Representatives they get in the House which is determined by the census.
Hehe, I know, you live in that world where Venezuela is a workers paradise and soft power has transformed the middle east. So at least your reality touches ours on one point.
Nah, I'm already living in a Right Wing world anyway.
Oh look, the Right Wing Machine of Lies is still working. You do realize that the article is talking about counting the votes to know the final result at this time, right? She never said she would go to court to contest them when they were finally out.
She admitted defeat when it was clear all the results were out.
But I guess your reality is already set on your Own Narrative, indeed.
His behaviors are not that bad, and by the standards of one of the financial elite, he actually seems to be a pretty upright citizen. We have an audio clip about grabbing women (and his personal life has been tumultuous but we're comparing him to Bill Clinton, c'mon...) and some allegations about... stuff? ... from the 90s and earlier.
Bill Clinton was not running for President.
Trump is human so he's far from perfect, but at the end of the day his behavioral history doesn't look any worse than most peoples' grandpa and probably compares favorably to the political field.
I don't know about your grandfather, but mine doesn't get up at three in the morning to make mean Tweets about people, and he would never have treated my grandmother the way Trump treats women.
Saying Trump's behavior is indicative of an older generation is like saying Lovecraft's views on race are a product of his time; that might be partially true, but it's minimizing the hell out of the whole story.
He won because PEOPLE voted for him. It's not the Republican war machine, he reached deep into people and struck the chord that rang with them the most: their anger. He fed and grew off their anger and hate, and people ate it up.
Yes, and guess what people? Certainly not democrats. There is a reason the states were painted in blue or red colors, by the way.
Republican supporters were called and inspired by the Republican Media Machine (I will call it "war" when they will actually go to war with another country - it will happen, you know it AND you want it, Red Team). They don't spawn "out of the blue" without warning, just for the pleasure of it.
I'm no big fan of Republicans, but a lot of Republicans hated him, some still do. They went along with him when it was clear he would sweep the country.
Well it seems the majority voting for Republicans didn't hate him that much. In comparison to Hillary, the Democrat's candidate, of course.
It's really funny to see how much you try to deny reality, even when it's right in front of your nose.
Trump's Party is the New Republican, now. Face it. And enjoy it, because it will be there for at least four years.
What a time to be alive! Hopefully Hillary is sharpening an old toothbrush in preparation for prison. (wishful thinking of course)
A few of his policies will be implementable, and the sillier ones (the wall, for example) will not. I think we'll end up in a good position.
Immigration: It's not about vetting the Muslim immigrants coming in through traditional channels - rather, it's about not bringing hordes of migrants into this country. Hillary wanted over half a million of them in her first term and cited Merkel as a great figure. No thanks, Hilldog.
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
Citizenship: I predict a 180 at this point when he realizes that he can't "round them up" - an accelerated path to citizenship or something of the sort, solidifying their vote in 2020.
Obamacare: Kill it...kill it with fire.
These are the issues that are important for me. I read an analysis by a staunch Dem friend of mine who predicted this over a year ago. His thesis was essentially that Trump will be elected simply because the Left has bullied conservatives and moderates (especially White moderates) to the point where it's impossible to admit in public that you're voting for Trump. I've seen tons of Trump signs defaced in this area - not a single Hillary sign touched. The Left can blame themselves for this, but they should really be celebrating, because we're going to make America great again.
Heh, well said, have an exalt! Some specific points that I could see coming and would welcome;
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
Ironically many gun control advocates have proposed exactly what many 2nd A folks would welcome: treating gun carry licenses like driver's licenses. National reciprocity, the vacating of idiosyncratic local rules, a 50 state solution.
Immigration: It's not about vetting the Muslim immigrants coming in through traditional channels - rather, it's about not bringing hordes of migrants into this country. Hillary wanted over half a million of them in her first term and cited Merkel as a great figure. No thanks, Hilldog.
Enforcement of immigration law is one of the great essentials, above and beyond the questions of Middle East refugees, for achieving much of the prosperity agenda. Like the legalization of illegals, simply making it clear that the laws will be enforced will have, I think history shows, a salutary effect on the problem.
It is probably just because we're in different locales and run in different circles but non of the gun owners among my friends and relatives or the casual acquaintances I know at the private range I belong to, would be supportive of a federal concealed carry license. The federal license would require legislation that would involve representatives in congress from states that are extremely hostile to concealed carry permits and gun ownership in general and that's not good and that's on top of the fact that some median ccw requirements would make obtaining a permit more difficult to many residents of shall issue states even if it makes permits slightly easier to get in may issue states and somewhat attainable in the handful of states that actively oppose it. Some of my state's gun laws could be better but on the whole they're pretty decent and I want my state carry permit to remain a state license protected and defined by my state constitution. I don't need the federal govt to come with some additional regulations to solve a nonexistent problem. The biggest proponents I know of federal ccw permits are people that live in blue states and have virtually zero chance of currently obtaining one from their state. That's a problem that needs to be addressed at the state level not from the feds.
You seem to have misunderstood me: I mean a situation analogous to driver's licenses (which I said). Not a distinct legal entity such as a Federal Carry license, but providing that all states must recognize the licenses of other states.
With due respect, I think you may also be underplaying the effects our patchwork legal system is having: being able to get into your car in one state with your legally carried firearm and drive wherever you want is a big deal, and here in PA we have seen several innocent people snatched up when they ended up in NJ without knowing that the state's draconian gun laws did not respect their PA license.
While we all want a minimum of Federal intrusion, I see the situation analogous to Federal enforcement of Voting rights.
I'm aware of the problem, I lived in NJ before moving south. I would rather see SCotUS enforce reciprocity via incorporation through the due process clause of the 14th amendment which should have happened in the McDonald case. I think we'll have problems with constitutionality challenges with a federal law forcing ccw reciprocity on states as a 10th amendment violation. Plus the 9th District Court recently ruled that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry so congress would have a reciprocity law challenged on that basis as well. We need SCotUS to do a version of the Obergefell v. Hodges, gay marriage ruling for ccw permits.
Ratius wrote: Is there anyone on here that likes/endorses/backs Trump?
Out of interest?
Right here!
I've been politely keeping my nose out of this thread (wasn't my election to have a say in, by my reconing).
I voted for brexit and i've been quietly in support of trump because i could see the groundswell of anger at the status quo.
Just like us brits, the lower echelons of the American people have been ignored when it comes to policy direction and economic policy; when you do that, you force them into action in the ballot box since there is no other recourse.
Thank feth we still have free speech in 'western nations'.
Interesting that the same people bemoaning brexit and trying to assure everyone that the UK economy is screwed and we'll 'remain' anyway, are all over in this thread saying trump will be a disaster.
I'm relieved because my sister, bro-in-law and neice are emigrating to D.C. at the end of the month and hillary's attitude to russia was making me concerned about a new cold war under clinton.
I might visit America for a holiday now.
Amen to that!
My problem is that while there is a logic to Brexit, and it could work if well organised (which it wont), there is no logic to a Trump presidency. This was th golden opportunity for a third party candidate to rise, but the third party candidates didnt sink their differences.
Voting for Trump is a token finger to the establishment, but it will hurt anti-establishment more than a Clinton victory ever could, as the financiers will run rings around Trump, and it beggars belief that a wannabe arch-capitalist in the Republican party is the posterboy for the disenfranchised American left because a vote for him is nothing more than a vote for incompetence to say 'feth you' to the system. It really sound to me like the US needs a Labour party. Then the disenfranchised can run to someone who represents their interests, it is obvious the voter base is now there for one.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Iron_Captain wrote: I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
.
Yes. And that in itself is one of the reasons for the broad market recovery currently underway. His ability to be magnanimous in victory, pivoting to the center, presenting himself as a 'uniter' bodes well.
No, it doesn't have any bearing on what's to come. That speech is a ritual...all newly elected Presidents cite the need to unite the country. Then reality sets in afterward.
Trump at least observed the ritual, but citing that as a reason for optimism is setting an incredibly low bar.
A) What was the last date prior to this one at which america was great. That is if trump is about to make things great again they must have been great some previous point. When was this?
B) Have there been any other periods where america was not great and if so, when did they span?
C) Was america great in the period spanning March 4th, 1829 to April 12th 1861?
D) If America was great at some period in the past, for whom was it great?
White people, all the time forever
Not to continue to beat the same drum, but there is a reason that in Yiddish America is called "The Land of Kindness". In 1776 Jews were still legally barred from residence in Spain, the Pale of settlement was about to be established as the only areas of Eastern Europe where Jews might legally reside and Jews would labor under a variety of official sanctions in central Europe for years to come.
By contrast, as exemplified by the Letter to the Touro Synagogue written by President Washington, America extended to the Jews fraternity and freedom that was not only unheard of elsewhere in the world, but revolutionary.
That America had values that it had not yet realized completely does not mean it did not have those values, or that those values were not exceptional.
Iron_Captain wrote:I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
I thought he was going to gloat about his victory and spew some more crazy stuff, but he actually said really nice things.
Also, the kid in the background trying to not fall asleep was hilarious.
I was also surprised with his graciousness in victory.
It reminded me of when a pair participants of some combat sport (primarily Boxers or MMA fighters) has a long buildup to a fight. Talking trash all the way and getting increasingly more vicious. Then once the fight is done it's hugs and respect.
Now, I have a hard time seeing "Humble-Trump" lasting too long, but one night is still one night longer than I expected
Co'tor Shas wrote: So she won tge popular but lost the EC? It's crazy that this has happened twice in the last two decades. You'd almost think that it's ans outated system thwt no longer works...
That's how federalism works.
You could mitigate the chance of it happening by introducing some Leveling seats a.k.k Adjustment seats. A group of electors distributed with the whole nation as one district, in order for the allocation of electors to match the popular vote. Such systems exist in Scandinavia (and I believe in Germany) in order to retain local representation, but still having the overall result conform with the overall popular votes. In Norway recently though, despite the Adjustment seats, the winning coalition got more seats with slightly less votes.
Good luck on making any changes to the American voting system though. As I understand, there's a metric f-ton of red tape and qualified majorities (unanimous decision by all states even?) needed.
All that presupposes that the idea that the election results have to reflect the popular vote is the correct and necessary idea. We don't need that reform because the popular vote and the electoral vote don't need to match. What you're basically arguing for is that we need to award bonus electoral points for margin of victory which is completely unnecessary. Hillary won California, she got all their electoral votes, whether she won by one vote or one million doesn't matter. More populous states have more electoral votes the system is already weighted in the favor of populous states we don't need to increase that favoritism even more. There are states where generations of people have never seen a presidential candidate in person because the states don't have enough electoral votes to be an important swing state, we don't need to devalue those states even further. Most often the candidate that wins the electoral vote will also win the popular vote by virtue of winning a lot of states, on some occasions a candidate will win the electoral college without winning the or popular vote based on the margin of victory in some states and that's ok, it doesn't change the outcome in states and it doesn't change the fact that populous states have more electoral importance than sparsely populated states. There is no problem to fix.
It would be a way of ensuing votes across the election is more evenly weighted.
How is the system weighted in favour of the populous states when they receive proportionally less electors per capita? If anything it's the other way around.
California for example has roughly one elector per 160k votes and Texas only one elector per over 200k votes. Meanwhile Alaska is only around 80k voters per elector and Hawaii an elecor per 100k voters.
We don't vote nationally we vote by state. More populous states have more electoral votes than less populous states. The electoral college doesn't award electors based on raw population it awards electors to states based on the number of congressional representatives per state. The number of congressional representatives per state is a adjusted every 10 years when the national census is taken. Electoral votes are then adjusted to reflect any changes in congressional representation. The proportional weight of California over Wyoming is the same on election day as it is on any given day in Congress and the running of the federal govt. You're advocating that we need to award extra weight to California over Wyoming on election night because for some reason California should have a greater voice on election night than it does in regular federal governance. There's no compelling reason for that. Populous states are treated fairly on election night just as they are treated fairly in Congress.
The vote is state-by state indeed. But the President is given a mandate over the entire nation, so I do believe it would be better to have the vote be at least partly nationally based.
Well, that's kinda my point. I disagree that the voters in populous states are treated fairly since they don't get the same representation per capita as less populous states. Also having no electors distributed according to the popular vote leads to the disproportional importance of those votes cast in the swing-states.
I guess there's not much point in keeping this discussion going though as it was just an off-hand remark from my part. I know it'll probably never be changed in my lifetime, and It's not like I can vote in the US elections anyway.
If you think states like California are treated unfairly on election night because of their ratio of electors to state residents then you're saying that California is also treated unfairly in the House of Representatives in Congress every single day because the number of electors California gets is equal to the number of Representatives they get in the House which is determined by the census.
That's what I'm saying, yes.
Cool, thanks for the clarification. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
"What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty and accountability, and bringing change to Washington. On the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following:
Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:
★ FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
Good luck with that.
★ SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health).
This is really stupid. It has no basis in any sort of reality.
★ THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
Regulations aren't made up on the fly, they have reasons. If you think a regulation is burdensome or unnecessary, ease or remove it. don't just remove them at random
★ FOURTH, a five-year ban on White House and Congressional offi cials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.
★ FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House offi cials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
★ SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
I actually like these, but good luck getting these past congress.
Seven actions to protect American workers:
★ FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.
Horrible idea, but I'm 85% sure that congress has to approve, so that's out
★ SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Just put the protections for american workers back in, otherwise it's a good idea.
★ THIRD, I will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.
Yay, let's start a trade war!
★ FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.
Define "unfair".
★ FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
There is not such thing as "clean coal". Also, fracking it hurting because of the Saudis and state regulation, nothing to do with the feds.
★ SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.
It's about as vital as a nose-lift. Besides, I thought Obama supported it?
★ SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fi x America’s water and environmental infrastructure.
Because Climate Change is a conspiracy by China (and apparently the rest of the world) to hurt America right?
Five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:
★ FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.
You realize any unconstitutional one would have already been challenged right?
★ SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.
i.e. "Loves corporations, hates equal rights."
★ THIRD, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.
Sure I guess, but they aren't doing anything illegal, AFAIK.
★ FOURTH, begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back.
Good luck with that.
★ FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.”
Ah the "keep away those dirty foreigners" bill.
Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with two children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35% to 15%, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate.
How? Seriously how, you have given no specifics.
End the Offshoring Act Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
Not sure how you can do this, but it might be good if done well.
American Energy and Infrastructure Act Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over ten years. It is revenue neutral.
Yes!. Although only if you also invest in high-tech infa
School Choice and Education Opportunity Act Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice.
No, no, a thousand times no! Our public schools struggle enough as it is. We don't need our tax dollars going to private schools. On the other hand, this is a state thing, so you can't actually do any of that.
Ends Common Core and brings education supervision to local communities.
It's a voluntary program done by the states, dingbat. You can't do gak.
It expands vocational and technical education, and makes two and four year college more affordable.
Good if true, but again not specifics.
Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts,
Bad idea. A replacemnent would be nice (I agree with Whem' that the canadian system would be a good way to shift), but just dropping it is such a bad idea. And "health savings account
the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines
Bad idea. A race to the bottom is not a good idea here.
and lets states manage Medicaid funds.
WTF, WHY!!! The states are the last people you want to give this stuff.
Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
Yeah, who cares about health and safety!
Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act Allows Americans to deduct childcare and eldercare from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-site childcare services and creates tax-free dependent care savings accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
Another random good idea. This seems like something you'd see out of the D's, not the R's.
End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall;
Billions of dollars for a useless wall, that will cost a fortune to maintain and man. And Mexico isn't paying for it, even if they wanted to it they couldn't afford it.
establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a five-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations;
"You aren't allowed here, so we're going to keep you here!"
also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying
Eh, sure.
and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
Stupid idea, and bad for businesses.
Restoring Community Safety Act Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a task force on violent crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
Typical crime stuff, nothing to see here.
Restoring National Security Act Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester
Because we don't spend enough on defense? We out-spend the the world to a rediculous margin, thoreing more money at the DoD isn't really going to change anything. They need reform, not more cach.
and expanding military investment; provides veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice
Good idea
protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack;
Should have been done years ago
establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.
Already exists.
Clean Up Corruption in Washington Act Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics."
If it's so corrupt, why would they pass it, moron?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I've been hearing a theory on local radio that Podesta was sent out with that message because Hillary couldn't maintain her composure after being beaten and didn't want to appear on camera like that. It would wind up being her legacy like it was for Geraldine Ferraro when she started crying during her concession speech. Hillary may play the victim card frequently but she doesn't want to be the object of pity. Which is entirely understandable given how the night went for her. I guess we'll find out if any of this is true or not once Huma writes her memoirs.
gorgon wrote: Trump at least observed the ritual, but citing that as a reason for optimism is setting an incredibly low bar.
He had ignored quite a few other rituals or common practices as a candidate, so it's mildly reassuring to see him at least trying to govern in a traditional fashion.
Well done, America. You have shown the way forward is not facts, but feelings, not policy, but platitudes, not logic, but fear.
I'd like to congratulate anti-intellectualism, paranoia and cognitive dissonance for their victory last night. It was a hard fought campaign, kudos to their herculean efforts to sway the American voter.
America has elected the first man insecure and crass enough to feel the need to defend the size of his penis on national TV.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Iron_Captain wrote: I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
I thought he was going to gloat about his victory and spew some more crazy stuff, but he actually said really nice things.
Also, the kid in the background trying to not fall asleep was hilarious.
Yeah, after the campaign so far, it was bizarre. Perhaps this signals a shift to the center now that he's won?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
wuestenfux wrote: He will build the wall from day one on, and Mexico will pay for it 100%.
Not sure if he realizes this crazy plan.
Remember Obama closed Gitmo in 2009. Oh, wait.
Extreme election promises are savvy election promises, few people actually expects you to action them, and many are happy when one quietly does not.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Hehe, I know, you live in that world where Venezuela is a workers paradise and soft power has transformed the middle east. So at least your reality touches ours on one point.
Nah, I'm already living in a Right Wing world anyway.
Oh look, the Right Wing Machine of Lies is still working. You do realize that the article is talking about counting the votes to know the final result at this time, right? She never said she would go to court to contest them when they were finally out.
She admitted defeat when it was clear all the results were out.
But I guess your reality is already set on your Own Narrative, indeed.
Hehe, oh yeah, I saw his speech live as it happened, but that's The Narrative.
Every commentator began talking about the deployment of lawyers. It was a shocking act at a time that everyone was watching... but no, that's nothing compared to Trump who said something at a campaign rally in Poduka.
You really do typify the projection of the left in this: every fault must lie in a miasma of lies by this nefarious 'Right Wing Machine'. A machine so well oiled we've been hearing about an impending GOP civil war (which is going to happen in the next few months, just with a bit less ire).
You really weren't kidding about not living in reality. There is literally nothing that I could present that could shake your faith in your narrative, a narrative that requires you to simultaneously believe there are tens of millions of irredeemably racist, atavistic people in the USA... but that you are the tolerant, enlightened one.
Iron_Captain wrote: I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
I thought he was going to gloat about his victory and spew some more crazy stuff, but he actually said really nice things.
Also, the kid in the background trying to not fall asleep was hilarious.
Yeah, after the campaign so far, it was bizarre. Perhaps this signals a shift to the center now that he's won?
Seriously, guys. Of course he would say that, he won. He's on a cloud, he has no reasons to be angry right now. So it's easy for him to listen to his advisors about what to say.
As I understand, there's a metric f-ton of red tape and qualified majorities (unanimous decision by all states even?) needed.
~1.5k
