Individual-1, a joke or a threat? (talk Trump)

[Cunt]

I don't know if the French system of two round majority vote is superior,

I don't know anything about the system. It does look like, however, that it is working TERRIBLY right now. People are making huge efforts to complain about things and express that they feel they have no control.

Same as here, I guess. (though the protests and problems look more serious or sharp, right now in France)

but what I do know, is that democracy means one man, one vote,

I think you meant 'one person, one vote, but I disagree.

Mostly, it means 'one citizen, one vote', at least in most cases I can think of.

It seems an important distinction.

and any system where the votes of some is made to matter more than the votes of others whether it's because underpopulated constituencies are overvalued compared to highly populated ones, or any other reason or modality, it is the antinomy of true democracy.

That's true, and I think it is why the US was set up to be something other than a 'true democracy'.

Would you agree with my modification to your statement, that democracy means 'one citizen, one vote', rather than 'one person, one vote'?

I mean, in a fantasy (or 'pure') democracy. The US isn't one, and I think it would be bad if it were one.

I don't think city folk understand country life. I don't know if you have both kinds of experience, but the difference is at once enormous and subtle.

[Brian Peacock]

Trump and the Republicans own the shutdown, regardless of el Tito's whinging about the Democrats. He didn't have to go there, but he did, he took that on...

[Joe]

So I'm not doing the exact same thing, and nowhere have I apologized for any of these fools, but nice try at false equivalence Cunt. Just remember, you're the guy saying

It's fun to watch.

I hope my US friends can enjoy it as much as we who live outside the country.

Which comes across as just a little callous toward the poor border control folks out doing a hard job for no pay. Maybe you should focus less on trivialities like Trump's posturing and where Pelosi vacationed, and more on the power plays.

Democrats have settled on a strategy for attempting to reopen the government when they take control of the House on Thursday, aimed at ending the partial shutdown quickly — but denying President Trump the new money he wants for a border wall.

Democrats plan to pass a stopgap spending bill to fund the Homeland Security Department through Feb. 8. The bill would extend the existing $1.3 billion spending level on border fencing and other security measures, far short of the $5 billion Trump has sought to build new walls along the U.S.-Mexico border.

But unless Trump retreats on his demands, Democrats’ legislation would not move Washington much closer to ending the partial shutdown, which has dragged on for more than a week and sent hundreds of thousands of federal workers home on furlough.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Monday the Senate would only bring up legislation that has Trump’s blessing. And with talks at a standstill for days, Trump himself remained bunkered in the White House Monday, tweeting out demands for Democrats to accede to his wishes.

As you say, "smart old lady that one," she put the spotlight right on Trump, and sly old Mitch McConnell helped her out with it.

I guess boring old parliamentary maneuvers just aren't as entertaining as the tabloid twattle, eh?

You admit that both are at fault, then insist that if Trump doesn't accept the offer Pelosi crafted (which she knows he will reject) then you want to blame him again.

I did nothing of the sort. I was quoting a newspaper article, and I've put back and highlighted what you left out so you can work on your reading comprehension.

Trumps posturing is no more disgusting than Pelosi's.

Both should have their pay cut until they go back to work.

Oh wait - Trump already gave up his salary...well, maybe Pelosi will do the right thing, give up her salary until they stop fucking around.

As to the wall, I think it's pretty clear that walls work (prisons, borders, mansions etc.) and that the US wants them.

Again, why not do everything they can to stop illegal entry? I mean, unless the Dems somehow benefit from having non-citizens in the country illegally...it sure looks like that...

Oh, it's clear to you that walls work, eh? And based on that unsupported opinion, you think there's a Democratic conspiracy to let foreigners into the country illegally. It sure looks like you shouldn't quit your day job, Columbo.

Of course, if you really learned about this issue, instead of uncritically swallowing fake news, you'd know that since 2007, the majority of illegal immigrants come here legally, 66 percent in 2014, and overstay their visas, instead of crossing the border illegally. Now I know it's really, really hard for you to get past your partisan bias against the Dems, but maybe they'd rather spend the money on our messed up visa system. After all, three of the 911 terrorists overstayed their visas. None of them crossed our borders illegally.

They wouldn't be alone if they did. Judicial Watch, the conservative government watchdog group, has been sounding the alarm for a few years.

[Seabass]

because he has donated his salary.

So magnanimous, that one...

I wonder, if you looked at politicians, and their wealth before, and after gaining office, if that would make some of them look creepy and dishonest?
Like if the Clintons served the public their whole careers, but were somehow filthy rich...that would be suspicious. Or if a huge drop-off in donations took place immediately after Hillary lost the election. That would look suspicious.

Or if Trump was filthy rich already, and lost some net worth after his years in the public office, would that make you less suspicious?

Oh wait, I remember you now. You are an 'Orange-Man-Bad' NPC. I should remember that earlier in our conversations. It would save me time.

I wonder, are fairies real? Why is the sky blue? Is the moon eating the sun?

[Svartalf]

I don't know if the French system of two round majority vote is superior,

I don't know anything about the system. It does look like, however, that it is working TERRIBLY right now. People are making huge efforts to complain about things and express that they feel they have no control.

Same as here, I guess. (though the protests and problems look more serious or sharp, right now in France)

but what I do know, is that democracy means one man, one vote,

I think you meant 'one person, one vote, but I disagree.

Mostly, it means 'one citizen, one vote', at least in most cases I can think of.

It seems an important distinction.

and any system where the votes of some is made to matter more than the votes of others whether it's because underpopulated constituencies are overvalued compared to highly populated ones, or any other reason or modality, it is the antinomy of true democracy.

That's true, and I think it is why the US was set up to be something other than a 'true democracy'.

Would you agree with my modification to your statement, that democracy means 'one citizen, one vote', rather than 'one person, one vote'?

I mean, in a fantasy (or 'pure') democracy. The US isn't one, and I think it would be bad if it were one.

I don't think city folk understand country life. I don't know if you have both kinds of experience, but the difference is at once enormous and subtle.

The system of elections is not in cause, it's the president himself and how he governs that are the matter of protests, which is why the huge round of protests arrives 1 1/2 years after the election.

And where do you disagree? why, in a democratic system, is there justification to make one voter more powerful than any other voter? and you're making a vacuous argument because you won't respond to the actual issue; why are individual Dakotan or Oklahoman citizens weighing more heavily in the presidential election than their Californian or New Yorker counterparts?

and I don't quite disagree that the US were not set up to be a true democracy, the fact is that the disparity in power, in favor of underpopulated states is less tolerable than the undervaluation of citizens due to their place of residence... let the Senate stay a place where each state weighs as much as any other state, but abolish the electoral college, or correct is so a citizen has an equal say in electing the president no matter where he lives.

[Cunt]

Oh, it's clear to you that walls work, eh?

They use them on prisons, national borders, and mansions of wealthy people everywhere.

So yeah, they work well enough. There are areas of the Southern US border that have had walls installed relatively recently. They seem to be working there.

And based on that unsupported opinion, you think there's a Democratic conspiracy to let foreigners into the country illegally. It sure looks like you shouldn't quit your day job, Columbo.

No, based on the resistance to several things, I suspect the Democrats of resisting border security.
Like resisting voter ID's
Like resisting deporting illegal aliens
Like declaring whole cities 'sanctuary cities' in order to attract more illegal aliens
Like trying endlessly to conflate illegal immigrants with lawful immigrants and orderly immigration

It kind of makes for a predictable pattern of behaviour.

Of course, if you really learned about this issue, instead of uncritically swallowing fake news, you'd know that since 2007, the majority of illegal immigrants come here legally, 66 percent in 2014, and overstay their visas, instead of crossing the border illegally. Now I know it's really, really hard for you to get past your partisan bias against the Dems, but maybe they'd rather spend the money on our messed up visa system. After all, three of the 911 terrorists overstayed their visas. None of them crossed our borders illegally.

There are probably LOTS of problems which could be addressed.

This wall is one of them. Somehow, the resistance to it is very predictable.

They wouldn't be alone if they did. Judicial Watch, the conservative government watchdog group, has been sounding the alarm for a few years.

What number of drug shipments, or human trafficking would have to cross the southern border before you would agree that it was worth addressing this way?

I think it's fine if the US secures their border. I think it would be cheaper to have a 'DMZ' of 20 or 50 miles, and simply do drone strikes on anything that moves (illegally) in that area, but with Obama gone, I doubt drone strikes will be palatable to the US public. It just makes sense to use a gentler solution. Like a moat, or a wall, or a combination of infrastructure solutions. What doesn't make sense is how consistently the Democrats seem to push for the rights of illegal aliens over US citizens.

[Brian Peacock]

[Hermit]

And the contrarian will continue to issue random challenges...

You mean inane strawmen, yes? Like this one:

Should an illegal immigrant have a vote that counts more than a retired police officer, who paid their taxes for all of a long career?

[Joe]

Oh, it's clear to you that walls work, eh?

They use them on prisons, national borders, and mansions of wealthy people everywhere.

So yeah, they work well enough. There are areas of the Southern US border that have had walls installed relatively recently. They seem to be working there.

And based on that unsupported opinion, you think there's a Democratic conspiracy to let foreigners into the country illegally. It sure looks like you shouldn't quit your day job, Columbo.

No, based on the resistance to several things, I suspect the Democrats of resisting border security.
Like resisting voter ID's
Like resisting deporting illegal aliens
Like declaring whole cities 'sanctuary cities' in order to attract more illegal aliens
Like trying endlessly to conflate illegal immigrants with lawful immigrants and orderly immigration

It kind of makes for a predictable pattern of behaviour.

Of course, if you really learned about this issue, instead of uncritically swallowing fake news, you'd know that since 2007, the majority of illegal immigrants come here legally, 66 percent in 2014, and overstay their visas, instead of crossing the border illegally. Now I know it's really, really hard for you to get past your partisan bias against the Dems, but maybe they'd rather spend the money on our messed up visa system. After all, three of the 911 terrorists overstayed their visas. None of them crossed our borders illegally.

There are probably LOTS of problems which could be addressed.

This wall is one of them. Somehow, the resistance to it is very predictable.

They wouldn't be alone if they did. Judicial Watch, the conservative government watchdog group, has been sounding the alarm for a few years.

What number of drug shipments, or human trafficking would have to cross the southern border before you would agree that it was worth addressing this way?

I think it's fine if the US secures their border. I think it would be cheaper to have a 'DMZ' of 20 or 50 miles, and simply do drone strikes on anything that moves (illegally) in that area, but with Obama gone, I doubt drone strikes will be palatable to the US public. It just makes sense to use a gentler solution. Like a moat, or a wall, or a combination of infrastructure solutions. What doesn't make sense is how consistently the Democrats seem to push for the rights of illegal aliens over US citizens.

Yeah, there are lots of problems that could be addressed, and only so much money to do it with. That's why smart people want to put money on the biggest problem, visa overstays. Of course, the country where we get the most overstays from is Canada, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Maybe you Canadians should build a wall.

[Tero]

Parks are drowning in shit. Thanks Trump.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/01/us/gov ... cnn.com%2F

Funny about them visa overstays, in a country whose president hates foreigners except Saudis Japs and Russians. Who would want our shithole?

[Joe]

On a lighter note, the wall worked!

[Hermit]

The point is that both sides are holding onto this government shutdown, and both sides could end it by agreeing.

BOTH are responsible.

Donald Trump disagrees with you. In his opinion the blame for a shutdown is to be laid solely at the president's feet, and he should get fired for letting the shutdown happen. Here's how he explained it:

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Who’s getting fired? Who’s going to bear the brunt of the responsibility if indeed there is a government shutdown?

Donald Trump: If you say who gets fired it always has to be the top. Problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top. And the president’s the leader. He’s got to get everyone in a room and he’s gotta lead.

[Cunt]

I don't think city folk understand country life. I don't know if you have both kinds of experience, but the difference is at once enormous and subtle.

The system of elections is not in cause, it's the president himself and how he governs that are the matter of protests, which is why the huge round of protests arrives 1 1/2 years after the election.

So the system of elections which delegated a lot of power to the EU is not the cause?

I really don't understand the setup, but it doesn't look like France gets to run France by the will of the French voter anymore. The EU is the real government.

And where do you disagree? why, in a democratic system, is there justification to make one voter more powerful than any other voter?

I don't know about any democratic systems. I know some that use elements of democracy, but step back a moment to realize that people could (and maybe would) vote for racist, sexist or homophobic policies.

Should they be allowed?

Voters are fucking assholes, remember? How do you suppose a 'Frexit' vote would go right now?

and you're making a vacuous argument because you won't respond to the actual issue; why are individual Dakotan or Oklahoman citizens weighing more heavily in the presidential election than their Californian or New Yorker counterparts?

I'm trying to answer, I'll try again.
Mostly, because that is the way the Electoral College is set up.

Should a city be able to 'take over' (via democratic voting) more and more of the country, until it runs everything? Should the voters of Kansas (ALL of them) be ignored because Manhattan votes earlier in the day, and they already voted?

It doesn't seem sensible to do a 'warm body' democracy in the US. I like a more selective system about who votes. I'll admit I haven't seen anything better in practice, though.

and I don't quite disagree that the US were not set up to be a true democracy, the fact is that the disparity in power, in favor of underpopulated states is less tolerable than the undervaluation of citizens due to their place of residence... let the Senate stay a place where each state weighs as much as any other state, but abolish the electoral college, or correct is so a citizen has an equal say in electing the president no matter where he lives.

If every citizen has an equal say in electing the President, then the candidates can work three or four cities in the US, ignore the rest, and somehow that is 'fair'...

I don't think it is. I doubt most people outside of those cities would think so, either. Those are the food producers, among other critical industries, by the way.

Canada has the whole country run by whoever succeeds in campaigning in Ontario and Quebec. I have lived in Ontario, and in the rest of Canada. I can tell you that what seems democratic, does NOT seem fair.

My personal preference is that everyone have to earn their right to vote. I've heard a good description of it, but as all stories go, it was a bit idealistic.

In practice, So far I think the US has the best system (though Australia seems to have some good things happening, too)

It looks like the whole EU is a giant failure of collaboration, which is weird. All the member countries seemed to have similar ethics/goals/etc., but it doesn't seem to work in concert.

[Cunt]

The point is that both sides are holding onto this government shutdown, and both sides could end it by agreeing.

BOTH are responsible.

Donald Trump disagrees with you. In his opinion the blame for a shutdown is to be laid solely at the president's feet, and he should get fired for letting the shutdown happen. Here's how he explained it:

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Who’s getting fired? Who’s going to bear the brunt of the responsibility if indeed there is a government shutdown?

Donald Trump: If you say who gets fired it always has to be the top. Problems start from the top and they have to get solved from the top. And the president’s the leader. He’s got to get everyone in a room and he’s gotta lead.

Yes. He took responsibility. Mostly, the Dem's don't. (though either side could stop the shutdown)

He might cost himself the next election, if he handles this wrong. If he gets elected again, I guess it means he handled it right.

[Brian Peacock]

Yep, Trump took responsibility when he said that he'd shut down the government if he didn't get what he wanted.