Politics - Jason X

[BruceVC]

So... just curious, is everyone here on the Trump-hate wagon?

 

And what if he got impeached and you got someone worse? I know you can say that's impossible but you've been wrong before.

 

Anyways, was just wondering as I chill with my wanton lass

I have never hated Trump even though I wanted Hilary to win. I want global economic stability, growth and sustainability, security  and Western values and ideology to be replicated world wide so there is prosperity and better quality of life for all

 

The USA is the foundation of these objectives so I dont  want the USA  president to implode and impact these objectives, Trump around most international policy decisions has been fine. Its his domestic policies that have been concerning and some of his tweets and public comments to be questionable, impulsive, petulant  or demonstrate poor judgement 

Edited September 3, 2017 by BruceVC

[redneckdevil]

Don't hate him, don't like him though. We didn't have a good pick between the 2. I voted for Johnson, but I know for damn sure Johnson could not survive the same media **** storm that Trump is enduring. Tbh the sob needs to stay off Twitter.

Otherwise, it's the same show different face, meaning the people with power are still there doing their thing as usual, we just have a much bigger distraction with Trump to make us look elsewhere. The only difference with Hillary, is A. the toxic PC atmosphere would still be here choking everyone (still is but would be in much heavier doses) and B. we wouldn't have the media so far up her ass that they couldn't talk about anything else, no the media would be directing us elsewhere away from looking at her.

With Trump, everyone looking at him while the govt does shady ****. With Hillary, we wouldn't be looking at her with the govt doing shady **** but something else.

[Blarghagh]

And what if he got impeached and you got someone worse? I know you can say that's impossible but you've been wrong before.

If you'd asked me a couple of months back, I'd have said impeach him before he does more damage. At this point I think most replacements from the Republican side, especially the vice-president, would be worse. Possibly most replacements from the Democrat side too. They'd know how to get their plans through whereas Trump has proven too incompetent to get his evil schemes to hatch. Better the devil you know to be useless and all that.

[Guard Dog]

Don't blame me... I voted for Johnson

[smjjames]

So just today I saw a Houston Police MRAP, presumably participating in flood rescues. This is a vehicle that Rand Paul says should never be given to local police, because why would local police possibly need a high clearance all terrain vehicle?

 

As far as the White House, Trump should fire Kelly and replace him with Bannon, bring back Lewandowsky and Gorka, and replace Tillerson with John Bolton. Trump needs loyal people who'll carry out his agenda, not a bunch of establishment backstabbers who undermine him every step of the way.

 

Stuff like that could certainly be repurposed for other things. Heck, some volunteers were using monster trucks (the kind you usually see crushing old cars in shows) which are absolutely perfect for flood situations.

 

As for the White House staff, Tillerson doesn't seem very competent, so, at least someone who knows how to structure a State Department properly.

 

 

As others so eloquently pointed out, I am not sure how a once in a lifetime flood justifies major military hardware for the police.

 

Three '500-year' floods in three years isn't 'once in a lifetime'.

[injurai]

There were 3?

[smjjames]

For the Houston area, yes, and it's what experts call '500 year', but aren't really since it's a probability, not an actual historical once in 500 years.

[Gromnir]

 

stuff 

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain the system more clearly, you are correct, I don't fully understand the mechanics.

 

But, regardless of it being fit for purpose, it is the "only game in town" and until that is changed, I would suggest that Donald Trump won democratically within that systems rules?

 

three branches of the US fed: judiciary, legislative and executive.  the legislative is elected the most democratically, as were intended.  judiciary is least democratic insofar as selection is concerned. the executive is chosen largely democratic, but with a nod to state rights. the US actual started out as a confederation o' sovereign States-- before we had the Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation. the importance o' State rights is fundamental and inextricable in our current Constitution. the electoral college, which is chosen through a democratic process, is meant to recognize the value o' the individual States.  small population states cannot be complete ignored or marginalized during a Presidential election as their electoral votes may be disproportionate significant.

 

but keep in mind, the US judiciary is not appointed democratic save for some oversight by the senate.  this does not bother you because your irish high court justices is also appointed as 'posed to elected by the people in a popular vote?  your demand for democracy seems a bit selective, no? to avoid hypocrisy, should you not be demanding elections for judges, US and irish? 'course if you see judges as different and not requiring or benefiting from a more pure democratic selection process, then why not consider the possibility the US executive deserves a different approach?

 

the selection o' the US President is less democratic than is selection o' Congress.  truth. selection o' the President is more democratic than selection o' US (or irish) high court judges. as noted earlier, our President doesn't do what most people believe he is capable o' doing; is far more limited. additionally, the electoral college were a validation o' the importance o' State rights. is good reasons why the electoral college were (and still is) the means by which the President is elected.  

 

as an aside, am personally thinking the electoral college is a bit of an anachronism.  we would be happy to see if all states adopted the nebraska and maine approach to assigning electoral votes. however, changes to the process beyond voluntary state action requires either amendment process or a new constitutional convention. the number o' times an elected President has failed to also garner the popular vote is small... and hillary clinton is a terrible example o' a victim o' the process as she seeming could't find michigan, pennsylvania and (in particular) wisconsin on a freaking map. clinton's negligence lost her the election at least as much as did the electoral college. the need for change is not particular great, but the infrequent and dramatic aberrational Presidential results which has happened a couple times in recent memory makes the electoral college seem more broken than it may be. regardless, we personal would like to see maine and nebraska approach become the rule rather than the exception.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

As others so eloquently pointed out, I am not sure how a once in a lifetime flood justifies major military hardware for the police.

 

Three '500-year' floods in three years isn't 'once in a lifetime'.

 

well, yeah, it kinda is.  on average, is gonna be less than once in a lifetime, but just as is possible to roll a hard seven five times in a row w/o dice being rigged, a once in a lifetime event doesn't mean is impossible for such an event to occur in back-to-back years.  is a tim caine video linked on this board somewhere in which he explains his frustration with explaining basic statistics realities to developers.  might be worth a read.

 

'course there is the possibility o' man-made climate change altering the overall dynamic, but such opens up a whole 'nother can o' worms for wod and we doubt he wants to go to such a place.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps apologies for double post.  is gauche, but didn't feel like adding to our immediate preceding post.

[Fiach]

 

 

stuff

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain the system more clearly, you are correct, I don't fully understand the mechanics.

But, regardless of it being fit for purpose, it is the "only game in town" and until that is changed, I would suggest that Donald Trump won democratically within that systems rules?

 

but keep in mind, the US judiciary is not appointed democratic save for some oversight by the senate.  this does not bother you because your irish high court justices is also appointed as 'posed to elected by the people in a popular vote?  your demand for democracy seems a bit selective, no? to avoid hypocrisy, should you not be demanding elections for judges, US and irish? 'course if you see judges as different and not requiring or benefiting from a more pure democratic selection process, then why not consider the possibility the US executive deserves a different approach?

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Sorry if you considered my post hypocritical, it wasn't my intention to appear that way. I don't have a dog in this fight, I was just mentioning how it appeared to me, looking at it from the outside.

I'm not entirely sure why you are bringing up Irish and US judiciary appointments, I was only talking about the college system for presidential elections and how that's currently the only system available in the US, So it's result is person deemed to be democratically elected.

 

Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to differ, cheers!

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

stuff

Thanks for taking the time to explain the system more clearly, you are correct, I don't fully understand the mechanics.

But, regardless of it being fit for purpose, it is the "only game in town" and until that is changed, I would suggest that Donald Trump won democratically within that systems rules?

 

but keep in mind, the US judiciary is not appointed democratic save for some oversight by the senate.  this does not bother you because your irish high court justices is also appointed as 'posed to elected by the people in a popular vote?  your demand for democracy seems a bit selective, no? to avoid hypocrisy, should you not be demanding elections for judges, US and irish? 'course if you see judges as different and not requiring or benefiting from a more pure democratic selection process, then why not consider the possibility the US executive deserves a different approach?

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Sorry if you considered my post hypocritical, it wasn't my intention to appear that way. I don't have a dog in this fight, I was just mentioning how it appeared to me, looking at it from the outside.

I'm not entirely sure why you are bringing up Irish and US judiciary appointments, I was only talking about the college system for presidential elections and how that's currently the only system available in the US, So it's result is person deemed to be democratically elected.

 

Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to differ, cheers!

 

 

is not a matter o' differing o' opinions.  we agreed with assessment that the selection o' the President o' the US is less democratic than is selection o' Congress or many other chief executives 'round the world... though is more democratic than quite a few, no? regardless, our post filled in seeming gaps in your assessment and knowledge concerning the election o' the President and other fed offices and we questioned why your criticism seemed so selective.  we noted reasons for the electoral college origin and continuation and we pointed out how the judiciary in the US is having even a less democratic selection process.  if lack o' democracy were the actual concern, then should you not be bothered by Justice selection too? but again, we noted how Irish high court judge selection suffers from a similar lack o' democracy.  doesn't make much sense to make a carte blanche condemnation o' lack o' democracy in the process o' chief executives while ignoring similar failings for other offices, does it?  

 

oversimplification or misunderstanding to say we disagree.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

Hilarious tweet storm I see.

[Zoraptor]

 

As far as the White House, Trump should fire Kelly and replace him with Bannon, bring back Lewandowsky and Gorka, and replace Tillerson with John Bolton. Trump needs loyal people who'll carry out his agenda, not a bunch of establishment backstabbers who undermine him every step of the way.

 

As for the White House staff, Tillerson doesn't seem very competent, so, at least someone who knows how to structure a State Department properly.

 

 

 

Tillerson seems fine, considering the limitations he's working under. No worse than Kerry or Powell, far better than Clinton or the later GWB offerings.

 

Kind of lol at WoD's idea of Bannon and Bolton in the same White House with Bolton as SoS. Their foreign affairs ideas are almost completely incompatible, and nearly everyone outside the US (and many within) loathes Bolton with utter passion.

[Malcador]

Kelly is pulling an Appleby on Trump it seems

[Fiach]

 

 

 

 

stuff

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain the system more clearly, you are correct, I don't fully understand the mechanics.

But, regardless of it being fit for purpose, it is the "only game in town" and until that is changed, I would suggest that Donald Trump won democratically within that systems rules?

 

but keep in mind, the US judiciary is not appointed democratic save for some oversight by the senate.  this does not bother you because your irish high court justices is also appointed as 'posed to elected by the people in a popular vote?  your demand for democracy seems a bit selective, no? to avoid hypocrisy, should you not be demanding elections for judges, US and irish? 'course if you see judges as different and not requiring or benefiting from a more pure democratic selection process, then why not consider the possibility the US executive deserves a different approach?

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Sorry if you considered my post hypocritical, it wasn't my intention to appear that way. I don't have a dog in this fight, I was just mentioning how it appeared to me, looking at it from the outside.

I'm not entirely sure why you are bringing up Irish and US judiciary appointments, I was only talking about the college system for presidential elections and how that's currently the only system available in the US, So it's result is person deemed to be democratically elected.

Anyway, I guess we'll have to agree to differ, cheers!

 

if lack o' democracy were the actual concern, then should you not be bothered by Justice selection too? but again, we noted how Irish high court judge selection suffers from a similar lack o' democracy.  doesn't make much sense to make a carte blanche condemnation o' lack o' democracy in the process o' chief executives while ignoring similar failings for other offices, does it?  

 

oversimplification or misunderstanding to say we disagree.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Maybe m not making my my point clearly enough.

it's not that I have a "concern for the lack of democracy". I couldn't care less about the judiciary either.

 

My point is, There are many forms of Democratic elections...for clarity sake, specifically for government leaders.

 

Each country I mentioned , democratically elects their leaders, but with different forms of democracy, PR, First past the post and Electoral College.

 

Ireland and England elect their leaders with their versions of Democracy and after voting, consider the winner, legally elected.

 

America has its own form of Democratic presidential election, Electoral College. That is it's legal democratic process to elect a president. So, Donald Trump won that democratic process, therefore he is legally the president.

 

It doesn't matter that Hillary got more votes, she still lost, because getting the most votes isn't legally the system used for voting for president in America.

 

Hope that helps clarify my thoughts on the matter

[Raithe]

Heh.

Distractify -Fox Poll

 

[injurai]

It's missing "Tells it like it is."

 

Also what type of monstrous title is that?

[Wrath of Dagon]

As others so eloquently pointed out, I am not sure how a once in a lifetime flood justifies major military hardware for the police.

Because people don't need to be saved if it's just a regular old flood?

 

 

For the Houston area, yes, and it's what experts call '500 year', but aren't really since it's a probability, not an actual historical once in 500 years.

It's not even a probability, we've had 4-5 floods in the last 40 years with close to 50" inches of rain. Supposedly a 100 year event is 13" of rain over 24 hours, but that's pretty common here, it doesn't even flood except in some low lying areas. The only way I can figure this nomenclature is correct is if they factor out all the hurricanes and tropical storms, since they expect people to evacuate in those anyway.

 

 

 

So just today I saw a Houston Police MRAP, presumably participating in flood rescues. This is a vehicle that Rand Paul says should never be given to local police, because why would local police possibly need a high clearance all terrain vehicle?

 

Why don't they just buy monster trucks then ? Those can handle high water and are probably cheaper.   And they're macho, so that'll be great for the cops.

 

You mean like this? : http://ktar.com/story/1714663/monster-trucks-pull-national-guard-trucks-harvey-flooding/

 

MRAP seemed to dwarf any monster truck though, at least when you see it up close.

[Malcador]

Yep. Had thought deuce and a half trucks would work but apparently they have had trouble. Still, not sure what an armoured vehicle is needed by local cops, and not as if that armor is required for water. Also why not give those to the National Guard, they get activated in these floods

[Gromnir]

 

Because people don't need to be saved if it's just a regular old flood?

 

 

For the Houston area, yes, and it's what experts call '500 year', but aren't really since it's a probability, not an actual historical once in 500 years.

It's not even a probability, we've had 4-5 floods in the last 40 years with close to 50" inches of rain. Supposedly a 100 year event is 13" of rain over 24 hours, but that's pretty common here, it doesn't even flood except in some low lying areas. The only way I can figure this nomenclature is correct is if they factor out all the hurricanes and tropical storms, since they expect people to evacuate in those anyway.

 

 

gonna need some support for such claims. has been multiple flooding incidents, but not as you describe.  allison, erin and ike brought major flooding, but erin actual only dropped 9 inches.

 

regardless, on average, a couple times a decade, maybe, you get a flood which would have need o' military vehicles... military vehicles which the military already has btw. money spent on such vehicles would be much better spent on mitigation efforts with investment lifetime much longer than a military vehicle.

 

______ wagons, while perhaps more difficult to get taxpayer support for such investment, makes more sense.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

So perhaps the report I saw was a bit misleading. The totals may have been correct, but they didn't necessarily happen in the exact same spot, whereas a 100 year event would be defined for a specific spot, not "somewhere" in the area. For example, in 1979 Alvin which is in the Houston area got 43 inches of rain in a 24 hour period! http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/After-35-years-Alvin-still-holds-U-S-record-for-5644837.php

[Hurlshort]

So I looked into it, and apparently the MRAP's are being sold to police departments for $5000, which is actually pretty reasonable for an emergency rescue type vehicle. Although they cost the military around $750k, so it's more of an issue of irresponsible Federal government spending instead of local spending. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, it's a good question why they have all these surplus $750K MRAPs to give away, when supposedly they're critically short of money for training and maintenance. Although I suppose it's better than giving them to our "allies", so that they wind up in IS or Al Qaeda hands.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[SonicMage117]

I live in Texas, but too north for the flood to affect where I am. As a Texan, although I do feel for the victims (who doesn't), I also realize that we all knew this came with the territory. If you don't want floods, winterstorms, tornados, tsunamis or mudslides, I'd recommend going to Michigan/Ohio. Nothing ever happens there as it's surrounded by lands or lakes so the temps are more collective and as such no risk for anything really.

 

Just a reminder, there was a flood on the other side of Texas last year, which was even worse. Does anyone remember? That being sais, these floods are expected. Strange that our state is never prepared. Something's gotta give. I'm glad I live a bit north (not giving out my exact location here of course). All in all, it's being handled alot better this year with Trump on the committee than it was when Obama was on the committee, albeit being made a much larger deal to attract more drama.

[injurai]

A lot of tropical storms actually move up to Ohio and pick up energy again as they find the Great Lakes.

 

Yes, Texans knew their region came with it's natural risks. But no matter how much you know, you can never fully prepare for something.