Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Oi hates ter git all perlitickle on yer...
federica
Seeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
0
Comments
No Facebook acct, presume we are referring to Mr. Trump. As a Yank, it makes me ashamed and not a little disturbed that so many are voting for this grossly deluded individual.
Me too. One can only hope that by the time it's time to vote, the majority of those who think he's so great will come to their senses. Plus it shows how little real choice is available. I never dreamed American politics could get so pathetic.
The link should work now. I realised it 'travelled' so I located the original video.... see if you can watch it now.....
John Oliver is great, thanks to the UK for giving him to us. As a token of gratitude, on behalf of the entire United States, I would like to hereby offer Donald J Trump in exchange.
The only reason this narcissistic nutjob is running for President, is he want his face on the hundred dollar bill why else would such a narcissistic person like Trump run.....
Regarding Mr Trump's narcissistic nature :
“He’s so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of his characteristics,” said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. “Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201511/therapists-confirm-trumps-narcissistic-personality-disorder
The most plausible explanation I can think of is he's trying to win a bet.
I don't know which is scarier - the puppets or the real thing!
Have been planning for future building program initiative of El-presidente Donald Duck Trumpet, of the Neo-Mexico (Trumpland Estates) and extended southern states and northern states.
Canadian president is a tree hugger and we trumplets may have to settle for a temporary wooden fence dividing Canada Hippy land from Great America ... More details from our think tank as soon as Sarah Palin opens her mouth ...
...sadly and not humourlessly Donald Mussolini Rump like El-Duce is quite capable of fascinating people to the point of horrific consequences. The danger is that he 'knows best' and would not trust the advisors and infrastructure that might mitigate his excesses.
In Dharma we talk of awaking. The potential first Emperor of the South Americas is coming ... Ay curumba, sleep walking zombies are amongst us and voting for a ridiculous hair cut ...
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=OIP.M6f15798fddb5c99d57e98e7e4e1bce06o2&pid=15.1&rs=1&c=1&qlt=95&w=201&h=104#inline
The unwanted gift belongs to the giver, I think the Buddha said....
Would you Americans like to take Nigel Farage? Or Boris Johnson ( he is rather funny actually ).
Trump's followers are riding a wave of anger and fear. He's appealing to the white people's fear that their way of life is under attack by other people who are different. You can point out to them all you want that it isn't true, but emotions won't let them doubt their beliefs.
Conservative Republicans created this monster, in spite of a lot of intelligent people telling them this would happen. One extremist is worth ten moderates when it comes to the voting booth, but eventually the extremist starts electing people who really believe in their cause and isn't just using it to get votes.
This is nothing new. And heck, between Trump and Cruz, I think Trump would make a better President. Let me put it this way. Trump might want to build an ineffective, big tall wall between us and Mexico because it's something he can point to and name "Trump's Wall", but Cruz would be the one to order mine fields be installed on either side of a simple chain link fence.
Around here, it's "Super Tuesday" today -- a multiplicity of states (mine being one) setting off for primary voting.
I plan to vote for Bernie Sanders ... because I want Hillary Clinton to get the message.
PS. And as a bit of political whimsy, here is a small opinion piece I wrote the other night: Lie To Me With a British Accent.
I don't know why many people opposing Mr. Trump. He says what he think and others just act or pretend to be modest.
Saying what you think isn't always wise. Particularly in politics.
Plus quitee a bit of what he says is drivel......
I'm not really convinced that Trump actually says what he thinks. He puts on a fresh new show that appeals to a lot of people, but I think he is really just like the worst kind of politician, meaning he just tells people what they want to hear in order to get support and makes empty political promises.
Maybe Trump was just born in the wrong place, he'd fit in perfectly as an African President.
Tis true that he does say what he thinks, but as @Bunks has pointed out it isn't always wise to do so...Especially with Mr Trump's warped sense of righteousness drivel that flows off his tongue...
But I would have to agree, you're definitely right about the pretence in politic...Which reminds me of the joke "How can you tell when a politician is lying ? His/her lips are moving !"
I still can't help but suspect that Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton's secret weapon.
Because what you think matters. My stepfather was a loudmouth racist who would tell anyone at the slightest excuse exactly what he thought. He didn't get any points from me for being honest about his racism.
I still can't help but suspect that Donald Trump is Hilary Clinton.
I mean... has anyone ever seen them together..?!
I don't give a twit about political antics: they're all mean and make a Hell out of any paradise. Get real, ANYONE acts better than the way some teenagers treat their parents.
Passed along in email:
]
A few months ago I posted that I didn't think Trump would end up with the nomination because his total support (then around 25% I think) was the upper limit of the insane portion of voters, meaning that the other 75% are sane and will eventually settle on a candidate.
I still believe that the majority of Republicans are fundamentally sane. But with the sane vote still divided among multiple alternative candidates, Trump has made some impressive gains. I don't think he can win the general election in November. I'd like to think he couldn't win the Republican nomination, but it's no longer quite so clear.
One analysis I heard thought that it didn't really make sense early on for any one candidate to go after Trump and challenge him because even if they brought Trump down, Trump would likely take the challenger down with him. Since no one really took him seriously they let him slide without bringing up his negatives like would normally happen to a front runner. Now that it is serious the other candidates have been raising issues which have gotten some traction, but it may be too little too late. If he does win the nomination all that unpicked fruit will certainly be used by Hillary.
I'm sure Trump will tone down his rhetoric and move to the center like the candidates always do once they wrap up the nomination. He has already changed his stance on torture.
Centrists who would be strong nationally in the general election generally have to play to their parties' extremes to get the nomination. This is because primary turnout is generally low. If you're a typical Republican voter, you probably don't bother to vote in the primary. Those who do actually show up to vote are the dedicated, intense, passionate believers. If a candidate wants to win THAT vote, they need positions to match. Same is true on the other side. Democratic primary voters are farther left than general election voters. So candidates on both sides have to play to the extremes to get the party nomination, then pivot back to the center for the general election.
Trump has built himself an advantage in that a major element of his campaign has been bombast, not detailed policy discussion. He doesn't have much policy out there on the record to later disavow.
At this point, I'd have to say any of the five major candidates (Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, Sanders) could conceivably end up as president. All of them have significant baggage, but no popular, wholesome, inspiring alternative has emerged. One of these losers will win.
I predict the return of the phrase "None of the Above" to our national political discourse.
In the midst of all the latest schoolyard-sly talk about Trump's penis, I thought it was interesting that the allegedly-nonpartisan Tax Policy Center issued a serious comparison of Clinton's and Trump's tax proposals. An article on ThinkProgress said:
Of course all this and more like it is not as titillating as Trump's pecker, but to me it had a whiff of something serious... the kind of material presidential candidates might rightly address.
On the other hand, there's this, passed along in email:
Oh well ... it was funny when it existed.
^ I think Donald Trump's campaign is funny as long as it existes.
I doubt very much anyone will find it funny if he's the one who ends up sitting in the Oval Office.
No doubt The Donald can build as many "The Oval Offices" as he likes. But, being no Mussolini, he has as much chance of being US President as a snowflake has in a fiery volcano.
Not gonna happen. People are voting for him in the primaries to strengthen the chances of a Democrat in November.
HH Emperor Trump of all the Americas is a simple god. We should not mistake him for anything less than a cosmic force for god knows what.
... and now back to more serious matters ...
We can hope that the majority of voting Americans in a majority of districts/states (electorally speaking) who take the time to vote are sane or at least sane enough to reject economic suicide (by-by middle class) and a move back to the age of the robber barons.
Perhaps a read on Mussolini's definition of Fascism and VP Wallace's warning about Corporatism would be in line.
The %$#mongers on the "Right" are proving one again that a lie repeated enough times gets mistaken for the truth.
Treat the threat seriously and oppose hate and bigotry vigorously and (Americans) VOTE!
Now back to the temple of Vanilla Bliss and the sacred halls of the chocolate dharma.
Fed, even many Republicans aren't voting for him. Some moderate Republicans are seriously considering jumping ship entirely, and voting for Clinton. There's also talk that this manifestation of extremism in the Republican Party, a trend that's been growing since Bush II, could lead to a permanent split, with the result being the creating of a more viable and long-term third party than US history has seen in the past.
Usually, 3rd parties were temporary phenomena created as a platform for a maverick candidate who thought he might have a good chance to win on a position either in-between the other parties, or more radical than either of them. But analysts now are speculating that moderates may create their own version of a republican party, leaving the official one, the historic one, to the extremists. And btw, there's been a deluge of citizenship applications by Latinos and other minorities, hoping to get voting rights in time to defeat His Toupee-ness.
The times are getting interestinger, and interestinger.
I've often wondered why the U.S. has been so resistant to more than two parties for so long. Other countries with first-past-the-post voting have had more than two viable parties for decades.
Things change, last year, after more than four decades of rule by a moderate-to-right party, my province voted in a social democratic majority legislature. I wonder how much it would take to shake things up in the states?
My understanding is it has to do with the differences between a presidential democracy (the US) and a parliamentary system (the UK). In a presidential system its winner take all so minor ideological differences get absorbed by one party or the other to help improve their chances of being represented, rather than staying pure to their ideology and never being elected.
I think a viable way to shake things up would be ranked choice voting, so voting for minor parties wouldn't be throwing your vote away.
Curious as to what you mean by 'ranked choice voting' @person
Ordinal balloting in itself doesn't necessarily waste any fewer votes. Multi-member districts (the most members per district as possible without making the ballot too large) are needed to ensure any kind of proportionality.
Single Transferable Vote is an option that has been and is being used in a few countries. There are other options for proportionality with ranked ballots, but they'd be even more difficult to count than STV.
I haven't heard about these other voting methods you mention, they sound somewhat similar to ranked choice.
Basically, ranked choice means rather than voting for just one candidate you rank your choices in order of preference. If no candidate gets %50 of the first choice votes then the lowest ranked candidate is removed and the ballots that had them number one count their second choice. This process continues until one of the candidates reaches %50 and they are then elected.
The major city close to me, Minneapolis, adopted this system for its mayoral race in 2014 and had 39 candidates (you don't have to rank them all, you can only choose one if you want). One unforeseen consequence was that it eliminated negative campaigning since you didn't want to alienate possible second choice votes.
Yeah, that's what I thought you meant, the single-member district system. It's also called instant-runoff voting or alternative vote in some places.
The problem with it is, like first-past-the-post, that there's still only one representative sent to the assembly per district. One representative cannot possibly honestly reflect the views of all of his or her constituents.
STV works similar to ranked-choice, but there are more than one representative sent per district. This usually means geographically larger districts, part of the trade-off for gaining proportionality.
For elections where a single winner is desired (President, Governor, Mayor etc.) then, yes, ranked-choice is probably a decent method.