Hillary Clinton Latest Crime

david starling

Well-known member
Listen to Oddity :smile:

There's currently a movement to throw a Presidential election to the Supreme Court if the Electoral-vote is close enough and the Popular-vote goes to the loser of the Electoral-vote. Other than that, as oddity says, nothing can be done about it. Still doesn't change the fact that Trump wasn't democratically elected. Long dead Slave-"owners" determined the 2016 Election results, not the Will of the People. No whining, just explaining.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
There's currently a movement to throw a Presidential election to the Supreme Court if the Electoral-vote is close enough and the Popular-vote goes to the loser of the Electoral-vote. Other than that, as oddity says, nothing can be done about it. Still doesn't change the fact that Trump wasn't democratically elected. Long dead Slave-"owners" determined the 2016 Election results, not the Will of the People. No whining, just explaining.
CW4RmCLUQAEXAit.jpg
 

david starling

Well-known member
My observation that Trump wasn't democratically elected isn't partisan, as you seem to erroneously believe. I'd say the same thing if Hillary had won the Electoral-vote and lost the Electoral-vote by nearly 3 million votes cast.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Not at all, but I am remarking that the irony of david's statement is gigantic. A lot of people have been tortured, raped and murdered under vicious dictators in the past, and still to this day in many places around the world.
There is absolutely no irony there. You are misconstruing the whole thing.

Dirius, just because there was dictatorship of the worst kind in Syria or Iraq, etc., does not mean that there is no dictatorship in the Western world, or the US. Dictatorship comes in many forms. Not just as Assad or Saddam.

The US (and the UK, etc.) are NOT real, direct democracies, where we, the public, the citizens, directly elect our leader. THAT is the real irony, especially since we call ourselves a real democratic set-up!!! The whole system is too confounded here. And, I am not going to go into the politics of it. However, that is the point that David is trying to make. And, that has less to do with Trump (although he has a very dictatorial, tactless style), and more to do with how the country's constitution is set up.

For someone who has been lucky enough to live in a truly democratic and free country, to go around saying in multiple posts that it is a "dictatorship" is just pathetic.
No! The U.S. is NOT "truly democratic". Taiwan is - truly democratic! And, you need to learn to differentiate before yet again repeating that David is saying that the US is a "dictatorship". You have completely twisted what he said. He did NOT say that anywhere. You are the only one that is calling the U.S. a dictatorship, but alleging David did, and that truly is ironical. You cannot show me one post where David said that, but right here is the quote where you said it! And you are the only one saying it, perhaps you don't even mean too, but are too excited. So, again, cool off and read carefully.

As for your comment, as I said before in other post (which JUP quoted here) the systems in places such as Germany, UK, etc., may not be perfect but they are democracies, just like the U.S.
Again, we are not talking about the countries being perfect or not, but distinguishing that the countries are NOT direct democracies and no one can deny that. You cannot negate that just because you are simply comparing the basic definition of democracy with dictatorship.

Unless you are prepared to offer an alternative without flaws, you shouldn't really complain. So, I will ask you the same thing I asked david before, what is your solution and better system?
Oh, really? So, you have never criticized the government and drawbacks in the system, etc. because what can you change there as a single citizen of wherever you live. People discuss their govt., taxes, etc. all the time, day in and day out. And, if you are so interested in a suggestion/resolution. Revamp the constitution, amend where necessary, Let us directly elect our president. Dissolve the electoral college because this whole set-up is skewed and corrupt. There, suggestion made. Now what?

And, since there is so much of harping about the US being a democracy where one lives freely, says and does what one wants, then why throw a fit when a U.S. citizen, living in the country, is expressing his own viewpoint about his own government and constitution?
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
I'm going with pretty much what we have now, with some improvements. I'm not against the Electoral College per se, with States holding their own Presidential elections, as long as the Electoral-vote reflects the Popular-vote. The way it is now, when there's a significant disparity between the two, it lends an aura of illegitimacy to the Presidency, and is a divisive factor in the overall public dialogue. There was, and still is, a lot of effort to portray Obama as an illegitimate President based on his birth certificate, which has distinct racial overtones [[IMO]. I don't see Dirius labeling that a pathetic attempt to create a rift in the country.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
There is absolutely no irony there. You are misconstruing the whole thing.

Dirius, just because there was dictatorship of the worst kind in Syria or Iraq, etc., does not mean that there is no dictatorship in the Western world, or the US. Dictatorship comes in many forms. Not just as Assad or Saddam.

The US (and the UK, etc.) are NOT real, direct democracies, where we, the public, the citizens, directly elect our leader. THAT is the real irony, especially since we call ourselves a real democratic set-up!!! The whole system is too confounded here. And, I am not going to go into the politics of it. However, that is the point that David is trying to make. And, that has less to do with Trump (although he has a very dictatorial, tactless style), and more to do with how the country's constitution is set up.

A dictatorship is defined as being ruled by a leader with a concentration of powers that can overrule the legislative/judicial branches of the state. And by doing so he can restrict or abolish the basic rights of citizens without control from anyone. A good example of a modern dictatorship is Venezuela, in which democratically elected president Nicolas Maduro granted himself powers to abolish the legislative power, and abolishes the right of citizens.

As far as I am aware, none of this has ever happened in the U.S. And given that Trump has been under investigation by congress/senate since he got to office, your presumption that he is a dictator or tyrant seems ludicrous at best.

The U.S., UK, etc. are direct democracies because you elect a representative to your legislative branch (call it senate, congress, parliament, etc.) and you also get to vote for your executive branch leader. The only thing you don't have a direct vote is for the Judicial branch, and this is true for every other democratic goverment in the world, which seems fair given a judge needs to be qualified not popular.

The core of your complain is the electorate college, which as many have mentioned over and over, is a measure implemented in your federal union to preserve the autonomus nature of the individual states. In any case, the state vote is performed by the citizens of the state, so the idea that you don't get to choose is ridiculous.

No! The U.S. is NOT "truly democratic". Taiwan is - truly democratic! And, you need to learn to differentiate before yet again repeating that David is saying that the US is a "dictatorship". You have completely twisted what he said. He did NOT say that anywhere. You are the only one that is calling the U.S. a dictatorship, but alleging David did, and that truly is ironical. You cannot show me one post where David said that, but right here is the quote where you said it! And you are the only one saying it, perhaps you don't even mean too, but are too excited. So, again, cool off and read carefully.

Again, we are not talking about the countries being perfect or not, but distinguishing that the countries are NOT direct democracies and no one can deny that. You cannot negate that just because you are simply comparing the basic definition of democracy with dictatorship.

Oh, really? So, you have never criticized the government and drawbacks in the system, etc. because what can you change there as a single citizen of wherever you live. People discuss their govt., taxes, etc. all the time, day in and day out. And, if you are so interested in a suggestion/resolution. Revamp the constitution, amend where necessary, Let us directly elect our president. Dissolve the electoral college because this whole set-up is skewed and corrupt. There, suggestion made. Now what?

And, since there is so much of harping about the US being a democracy where one live freely, say and do what one wants, then why throw a fit when a U.S. citizen, living in the country, is expressing his own viewpoint about his own government and constitution?


Some quotes from david refer to the current U.S. presidency as a dictatorship (or tyranny which is a synonim).

Also calling him "not the democratic president" or "not the real president" is a way of implying he is an illegitimate leader, thus a way of establishing that he usurped his power, as tyrants and dictators do.

But if what you need is the actual use of the word to be satisfied:

He's still Dictator in Chief. It's just the tyranny of the minority instead of the tyranny of the majority. The lack of Checks and Balances is the real issue.
My solution is a direct proportional correspondence between the Popular-vote and the Electoral-vote in each State. One person, one vote, as mandated by the Supreme Court; Presidential elections included, which is not happening under the dictatorship of the winner-take-all Electoral system.

I will explain now why its hypocritical to complain about the electorate college: because you are complaining about it post-election.

It seems to me that everyone was perfectly fine with the EC system before the election, and almost none of the political commentators or vocal activists had anything to say about it (except for some constitutional jurists that have always written on the subject). On the very least, the subject of the EC wasn't a mainstream topic of discussion as it has become since 2016 election.

But now, the EC delivered you a president that you dislike, and everyone seems to allocate the blame on it, because you are dissatisfied with the current president. That, in all honesty, is just whining. The system has been in place for a very long time, but just now you all realised its not perfect? give me a break.

If Hillary would have been the winner, you wouldn't have said anything about the EC. Did any democrat said anything about the EC during the Obama administration? As far as I am aware, during the Obama period, democrats had a majority in Congress, and also the presidency. They could have easily abolished the EC system back then, but why didn't you?


And yes sure you can make suggestions, but unless you can deliver something better, there is no point to it. As I mentioned earlier, in direct democracies you also suffer from having an elected president with only a small number of the population backing him. That is actually the tyranny of the minority. Need examples? What about Austria's right wing president who won with only the backing of 31% of the nation? Almost 2/3 of Austrians don't want him as a president, yet there he is.

You have it way better than most people in the world do. Be realistic about how fair your system actually is. Lets not play dumb, and admit that most of the hate the EC gets is so you can discredit Trump, nothing more.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Trump does fancy himself the Dictator in Chief, which is only natural, because CEOs ARE basically dictators of the Corporations they head. At the time I posted that, I was alarmed that Congress and the Senate and the courts weren't going to perform the duty of checks and balances; but, fortunately, to a large extent they have. So, aside from Executive Orders, which are a Presidential prerogative, and can be blocked by the courts or challenged in Congress, he has not been able to act unilaterally.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
The problem with the Electoral College system really started with Bush Jr., not with Trump. It's just gotten worse.
Why not just admit it, Dirius? You're a closet Trump-lover, pretending objective neutrality. So, as like all Trump-lovers, you take ANY criticism regarding his qualifications, policies, or Presidential legitimacy as "hatred". There's no hatred on my part, even though you need to see it that way. I remember feeling some momentary hatred towards LBJ when he was blatantly lying about the Vietnam War, but other than that, I've never had strong feelings either way about a politician. Facts are facts, and Trump is President by the law of the land, but he WASN'T democratically elected by the Nation. And, he's not able to function as a dictator, even though he would if he could. The Constitution is still in force, and the sky hasn't fallen. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Oddity did state criticism of Trump, which disqualifies him as a Trump lover. Sorry about saying you are, Oddity. Maybe you're not either, Dirius. Any criticism of Trump on your part?
 

Oddity

Well-known member
Dirius has criticised Trump plenty of times, both pre and post-election. Even today he said he thought Hillary a more qualified candidate.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Dirius has criticised Trump plenty of times, both pre and post-election. Even today he said he thought Hillary a more qualified candidate.

Must have tuned out due to his insults. What's his criticism of Trump, if you don't mind summarizing? Really, he thinks Hillary is more qualified?! I'll have to find that one.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Must have tuned out due to his insults. What's his criticism of Trump, if you don't mind summarizing? Really, he thinks Hillary is more qualified?! I'll have to find that one.

Trump isn't a politician and doesn't know how to run goverment. He also lacks diplomacy when interacting with other countries. He was a very bad choice for office.

But his simple campaign message based on 3 issues was sort of corret: create more jobs, fight crime, fight terrorism. So it is easy to understand why he won. On the other hand the democrats based their campaign on... well "first woman president", as if that mattered at all.

While I agree with him on some of his positions, such as the problem of illegal immigration, the war on terrorism and the threat of islam to western society, most of the "solutions" he provides are certainly ineffective. I also disagree with him on some of the major subjects, such as enviromental issues and removing free health-care (though I admit the affordable care act is poorly implemented). I don't think he is a guy that has any solutions to any of the problems.

He is, however, good at pointing out some of the problems which many other politicians have ignored. And its also fair to say that he is the only person in goverment who doesn't care about being "politically correct", and thus finds himself as a symbol of the fight against SJWs and the radical left.

The reason I defend his supporters is because for better or worse, he won and he is the president of the U.S. You may dislike him, but this does not mean the system for electing a president is bad.

I do however, believe that if you wish to critice him, you need to base it on actual policy, not on his personality or things he said before he became president.

Is the economy better or worse? are crime rates higher or lower? Is a tax reform better for the country? Is the deficit increasing or decreasing? how is the inflation? did he commit treason? is unemployment higher or lower? etc, etc, etc. These are the issues you should base your judgement upon.

Now in regards to the forum discussion, it would be lovely if we could have a grown-up debate about Trump. But we can't do that if in every other post someone: calls him a tyrant or dictator; or says he is a representative of the "cis-hetero patriarchy" and opresses women; or someone claims he is an annunaki spawn lord that has come to conquer us all; or says his supporters are all un-educated racist nazi biggots.
 
Last edited:
Top