Donward Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Well Andrew Jackson said towards the end of his presidency that his only regrets were not hanging John C Calhoun and not shooting Henry Clay. Conversely we had President Calvin Coolidge whose most famous attribute is not saying a damn thing at all. So we've been all over the map with presidents and their eccentricities. The interesting aspect of Trump is actually how little he says and promises. I can't link it at the moment but take a look at his actual platform on his website. It's just five things. Tariffs/Trade with China, VA reform, tax reform, 2nd Amendment Rights and Immigration reform. That's it. Now you can agree or disagree with some of the details and dislike the man but those are five issues which are actually in the scope of the Federal government and its constitutional duties. Contrast this with - say - JEB! Bush and he has a platform that is a literal fucking book. I mean seriously, look it up. Yeah, I get the concern with Trump and for you outsiders, you must think we are barking mad to tolerate him. But this Trump phenomenon is fascinating. And it is real. Take a look at the turnout in New Hampshire for Trump and Sanders. They are staggering numbers for that Primary. Particularly when you consider that neither of those two men spent much in campaign money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Isn't it possible for someone in the US to become president with a minute amount of the vote anyway, given how screwy the electoral college is? In any case; Brone, for your own sanity I'd suggest that you leave it. Otherwise these dudes will spend all day telling you about the five thousand-and-one rooms of the heavenly maze that is the US political system. You're better off using the neurons to understand transonic flow over non-rotating projectiles. There is a magic number of electoral votes that a US president must get to be elected which is 270. Each state gets a number of electoral votes based on the number Representatives they have in the House plus two more for their Senators in a winner take all format. The popular vote in the country does not decide the race. If it so happens that no candidate receives the magic number which has happened in our history, the decision is kicked to the House of Representatives (per the 12th Amendment) who decides to be President. Senate gets to choose who will be Vice President.Similarly, voters technically don't choose who is President at all but simply are selecting a group of electoral college delegates who pinky swear promise to select the candidate whom the voters elected but could - in theory - vote for someone else. Actually, technically it is against the law for a delegate to cast a different vote but it rarely occurs and is rarely prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppewolfRO Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Well, I am not following very close these elections and besides I am foreigner but here's my 2 cents considering we had here a president who had about the same profile as Trump (Mr. Basescu). Personally I'd vote Bush or Rubio. Jeb Bush have something of a good guy in him. Rubio is more spectacular and is Cuban but that issue with the sound bite was awful for his chances and it's probably good that the public reacted in such manner, you will not see anything like this in Romania, where politicians speak only in texts learned. But Bush and Rubio have no identity. Or they have but it's very pale. Trump says crazy stuff and it's the rebel which is struggling with the system (same Basescu in 2004). Cruz is ultraconservative and radical ultra-Orthodox, who just follows Christian Teachings (America is Neo Protestant ). Both have well-defined brands. Rubio and Bush are, truth to be said a fairly ambiguous. Trump bets on "direct speech" in a world exasperated by political correctness. But that does not make him likeable, at least by me (if I were American, between Clinton and Trump would vote 1000 times Clinton - because on my own scale of sins xenophobia, racism and hatred on religious grounds is over high taxes and over-regulation - that talk of statism/socialism and like is just after we solve the most serious issues: racism, xenophobia, nationalism). Clinton is sour and tired and lacks the necessary minimum of a leftist: proximity/empathy to people. Left has always had this brand: proximity/empathy to people. A decrepit old man has the empathy and is Sanders but not Hillary. So to recap: Trump - punk, brave and direct, he say real stuff, genuine, sincere, one-piece but I saw that here and there is little else to offer. Cruz - political correctness in terms of the right (not unlike the political correctness of the left - the same type of commissioners sad, unimaginative, humorless, uncultured and with low IQ but nervous) Sanders - close to the people, the revolutionary Clinton - bitter, tired, predictable and, from this point of view, reassuring Bush - a luckless Clinton, in a party that took hatred and conspiracy hysteria too seriously Rubio - a Trump / Cruz / Clinton / Sanders extremely soft - and it's new, it's moderated and reformer. That's all. It's the second choice of all. It's the first choice of none. In June 2015 Hillary's chances of becoming president USA were minimal. In February 2016 are high. In March 2016 will be huge. Donward 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 There is a magic number of electoral votes that a US president must get to be elected which is 270. Each state gets a number of electoral votes based on the number Representatives they have in the House plus two more for their Senators in a winner take all format. The popular vote in the country does not decide the race. If it so happens that no candidate receives the magic number which has happened in our history, the decision is kicked to the House of Representatives (per the 12th Amendment) who decides to be President. Senate gets to choose who will be Vice President. Similarly, voters technically don't choose who is President at all but simply are selecting a group of electoral college delegates who pinky swear promise to select the candidate whom the voters elected but could - in theory - vote for someone else. Actually, technically it is against the law for a delegate to cast a different vote but it rarely occurs and is rarely prosecuted. Brone, I told you that this would happen! Run now, while I distract them by saying that guns should be banned and abortions should be made illegal in all cases! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted February 11, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Well, I am not following very close these elections and besides I am foreigner but here's my 2 cents considering we had here a president who had about the same profile as Trump (Mr. Basescu). Personally I'd vote Bush or Rubio. Jeb Bush have something of a good guy in him. Rubio is more spectacular and is Cuban but that issue with the sound bite was awful for his chances and it's probably good that the public reacted in such manner, you will not see anything like this in Romania, where politicians speak only in texts learned. But Bush and Rubio have no identity. Or they have but it's very pale. Trump says crazy stuff and it's the rebel which is struggling with the system (same Basescu in 2004). Cruz is ultraconservative and radical ultra-Orthodox, who just follows Christian Teachings (America is Neo Protestant ). Both have well-defined brands. Rubio and Bush are, truth to be said a fairly ambiguous. Trump bets on "direct speech" in a world exasperated by political correctness. But that does not make him likeable, at least by me (if I were American, between Clinton and Trump would vote 1000 times Clinton - because on my own scale of sins xenophobia, racism and hatred on religious grounds is over high taxes and over-regulation - that talk of statism/socialism and like is just after we solve the most serious issues: racism, xenophobia, nationalism). Clinton is sour and tired and lacks the necessary minimum of a leftist: proximity/empathy to people. Left has always had this brand: proximity/empathy to people. A decrepit old man has the empathy and is Sanders but not Hillary. So to recap: Trump - punk, brave and direct, he say real stuff, genuine, sincere, one-piece but I saw that here and there is little else to offer. Cruz - political correctness in terms of the right (not unlike the political correctness of the left - the same type of commissioners sad, unimaginative, humorless, uncultured and with low IQ but nervous) Sanders - close to the people, the revolutionary Clinton - bitter, tired, predictable and, from this point of view, reassuring Bush - a luckless Clinton, in a party that took hatred and conspiracy hysteria too seriously Rubio - a Trump / Cruz / Clinton / Sanders extremely soft - and it's new, it's moderated and reformer. That's all. It's the second choice of all. It's the first choice of none. In June 2015 Hillary's chances of becoming president USA were minimal. In February 2016 are high. In March 2016 will be huge. Thats interesting in my experience the Romaians have never strayed away from Nationalism. Your national anthem kicks ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppewolfRO Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 There are a lot of myths about Romanian nationalism. But last year we elected German ethic president of Lutheran with a wide majority 54,43% from a presence of 62,04% while the Romanian demographics give an 88,2 % Romanian ethnic and Orthodox majority. But let's not hijack this discussion, if you want we can continue on RO_MANIA topic. Funny, we think here Russian anthem sounds much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted February 11, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 No i agree Russian anthem is better. I just think Romanian anthem is good regardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted February 11, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Oh, ok. You've had presidents that sprouted more bullshit than Trump? How's that even possible? Except the monarchy isn't elected, your president is. I still wouldn't want anybody like Trump to be in a representative or executive position. I know it has to pass the Senate, but that still doesn't mean it's okay (imo) for Trump to say whatever bullshit he sprouts. The US government can cry as hard as they want about the president not representing the United States of America, but people outside the US will see it as such. Does that change internal US politics? Not at all. Foreign diplomats also should know how things work. But how important is the opinion of citizens of foreign countries? If you want to "make America great again", I'm pretty sure you need other countries to share that impression/opinion or at least respect you for what you are. It's an extreme example, but I'm pretty sure North Korea sees itself as a pretty great country. Yet we make fun of them. Anyway, I think you're getting what I'm trying to say here. Eh I will take trump over Hillary anyday. She calls us Nazi's all the time and will probably start a third world war for girl power or something Fuck her Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm_kruger Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Trump and Hillary are cut from the same cloth. They're both "I've got money, you stupid little people don't need to worry about things" types, except Trump has embraced the populist tactic of "I will say whatever gets me attention and votes." He's donated thousands of dollars to the Clinton Global Initiative, supports "reasonable restrictions" on "assault weapons", donated to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's campaign, and didn't donate money to Republican political campaigns before 2012. SergeantMatt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 Can I still dream of a Huntsman v Webb v Warren v Johnson race? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanagandr Posted February 11, 2016 Report Share Posted February 11, 2016 It's just... I don't know what his policies are, what he's planning to do, but... I get that the US has the first amendment which allows him to say basically anything, but in the EU he'd be imprisoned so quickly for hate speech. And isn't the US president supposed to represent the people? If over half of the country doesn't mind the things he says, I've lost all hope for the US. It'll be fun for diplomats as well: "No Mister Chairman, the US president didn't mean it when he said "nuke the chinese".", "No Mister President, the US president didn't mean it when he said all Mexicans should be expelled from the US.", "The opinions of the US president do not represent current US foreign policy." etc. As far as things presidents have said, LBJ, who signed the Civil Rights Act into law and is generally remembered fondly, threw the n-bomb around. He's attributed as saying, upon signing the Civil Rights Act into law, "I'll have them niggers voting democratic for 200 years", and while there's not a whole lot to substantiate that particular quote, there are recordings of him using that kind of vocabulary. We are notorious for having shitty people elected as president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SergeantMatt Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Isn't it possible for someone in the US to become president with a minute amount of the vote anyway, given how screwy the electoral college is? In any case; Brone, for your own sanity I'd suggest that you leave it. Otherwise these dudes will spend all day telling you about the five thousand-and-one rooms of the heavenly maze that is the US political system. You're better off using the neurons to understand transonic flow over non-rotating projectiles. A presidential candidate could be elected with as a little as 21.8% of the popular vote by getting just over 50% of the votes in DC and each of 39 small states. This is true even when everyone votes and there are only two candidates. In other words, a candidate could lose with 78.2% of the popular vote by getting just under 50% in small states and 100% in large states. The optimal set of states to take (the one that lets a candidate win with the smallest popular vote) is not the N states with the smallest population. It's also not the N states with the smallest value for (population/electors), which would be optimal if you could get exactly 270 electoral votes that way. The optimal solution happens to get exactly 270 electoral votes. In this solution, the winner takes DC, the 37 smallest states, the 39th smallest state, and the 40th smallest state. (The winner takes Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Scott Adams has been running a good series deconstructing Trump. The take-home is pretty simple; Trump has gone full throttle on the maxim that any press is good press. It doesn't matter if the news reports are abuzz about how retarded the most recent thing Trump said was. What does matter is that they're talking about Trump, and also that they're not talking about anyone else. As long as he keeps the attention on himself he wins. His platform is, as Donward pointed out, remarkably non-descript. This is a strength, not a weakness. It allows potential voters to see what they want to see in him. On the flipside, it allows his opponents to see whatever they want to see, which is generally Hitler or something. But that's almost cost-free for him; anyone he offends was unlikely to vote for him anyway. I cannot tell if this is because he's a blustering megalomaniac who stumbled upon this formula, or whether he's calculated everything in advance and just tries to make it look like he's winging it. Maybe some of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xthetenth Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Anybody bad enough to push Scott Adams into accidentally saying anything good is really really bad even if he's totally unhinged in saying it. On the other hand, I think that non-descriptness is why Trump generally has bought his support among conservatives at the expense of that among liberals and independents. It's good for the primary and bad for the election. It'll be interesting if he wins the primaries seeing whether he goes in with specifics to try and prove his doubters in the independents and liberals wrong, and if that works or backfires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 I don't know man. I'm seeing a lot of polls where The Donald does well with independents and even traditional Democrat voters like Union guys. On the other hand, he has a shitty taste in steak. Donald Trump Ordered A Well Done Rib Eye Last Night. Well Done! EhrmagodbeginimpeachmentproceedingsNOWAH!!! (I think that blog post is full of shit but still funny. Medium Rare Steak Uber Alles) SergeantMatt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 I'm legitimately beginning to think it's a coldly calculated strategy. If he's that stone cold about it, I'm oddly, slightly less worried about some of his stated policy positions as they could be totally populist posturing that he's going to completely ignore or only pay marginal lip service in passing actual legislation when in office. Where I worry is if it's the megalomania is what's driving the process... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 I wonder what proportion of wehraboos support Trump. That's my biggest fear. A large voting block of populist/authoritarian/wehraboos that can win local elections and cause greater federal tension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostCosmonaut Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Inb4 change.org petition to restart Tiger production StrelaCarbon, Tied, Priory_of_Sion and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 The Tiger was a great tank unlike what we have today. Todays tanks are not great. We need more great tanks. Everyone knows how great the Tiger was. Make America great again! I read somewhere that Trump's speeches are usually told on a 2nd or 3rd grade reading level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted February 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Trump and Hillary are cut from the same cloth. They're both "I've got money, you stupid little people don't need to worry about things" types, except Trump has embraced the populist tactic of "I will say whatever gets me attention and votes." He's donated thousands of dollars to the Clinton Global Initiative, supports "reasonable restrictions" on "assault weapons", donated to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's campaign, and didn't donate money to Republican political campaigns before 2012. Well gee. Its almost like rich people can be civil with each other while still holding differing political belief But who am i kidding. There all some evil fatcats who are secretly working together right, like it said so on r/berniesanders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm_kruger Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Well gee. Its almost like rich people can be civil with each other while still holding differing political belief Well too bad you're not rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted February 12, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Its too bad your father has a taste for swinepussy you limped dick faggot slime Its too bad your father wasnt wealthy enough to afford rubbers, im sure your sister was disappointed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 I know Ted Cruz rubs a lot of folks the wrong way but the guy (and his staff) has a pretty good sense of humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore has dropped out of the GOP presidential race. The guy received just 125 votes in New Hampshire, which puts him well behind perennial candidate Vermin Supreme who earned 240 votes in the Democrat primary. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/vermin-supreme-receives-votes-gov-jim-gilmore-article-1.2526474 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts