So the secret to improving education is to appoint someone who has no knowledge of the topic?
Trump solely created whatever image of him you think is out there with his words and actions.
Right-wingers like to portray themselves as believing in a culture of personal responsibility - all I see here is an attempt to pass the buck onto somebody else.
1 Like
Thereās a lot of people working in that petrol station Obama opened
1 Like
nothing to what President Trump has done for Doobeg
1 Like
There are good arguments for and against the electoral college. Most of the arguments against are made by people who donāt understand why it was set up that way. My own view is, like democracy, its flawed but better than the alternatives. A popular vote runs the risk of the urban centers having too much power, as if everyone actually came out to vote, Democrats would always win (which is what progressive liberals want, not recognizing the dangers inherent in such thinking).
Itās really a feeble excuse to point to people not voting as an argument for anything. I live in a state where Clinton won by a huge majority and many people here would say there is no point voting. Itās complete bullshit, as if all voters who lean Republican voted for their candidate, they would win in a landslide.
No, I didnāt say that, nor do I think that. When a system is so broken though, it needs a major shake up, and someone from outside the education field, but who is passionate about, it might have a shot at changing it for the better. The first step is recognizing the problem, Iām not sure many in the current dept even accept thereās a problem.
Everyone coming out to vote would be an inherently good thing for democracy.
If in a popular vote situation, Democrats kept winning (I donāt believe that would happen in a two party system at all, far from it), perhaps it would force the Republicans to move to a more sensible position free of the nutty nonsense theyāve embraced.
That would undoubtedly be a good thing too.
2 Likes
How closely do the amount of votes each state gets in the system reflect the population of the state? Maybe that is the way to reform it. It seems ludicrous that someone can win, with ease, in a two horse race despite getting 2 million votes less than their opponent.
Also, what % of DC voted Democrat? Saw something the other day that looked ridiculously high.
[quote=āJabaldinho, post:3948, topic:19437, full:trueā]
I get that, Iām not expecting religion to up and vanish or anything. But if weāre not meant to take religion and scriptures so literally, how do we condone such a blatant falsehood, and worse, teach it to bloody kids! [/quote]
Who is the āweā in not taking religion or scriptures literally? I know Catholics donāt take anything seriously in their religion, whatever about literally, but the majority of Christians in the US are Protestant and tend to take the bible literally. Religion and science are different topics, there are plenty examples of people who are leading scientists but also fundamentalist Christians or Muslims, etc.
Thereās no evidence Carson would want to teach creationism in schools, and even if he wanted to he couldnāt, as creation āscienceā has been rejected by the courts, and any attempt to promote a religious viewpoint in public schools is contrary to the first amendment.
A good rant here, @Sidney watch this, after your brexit and the don calls, maybe have a look inwards at your methods of evaluating public opinion
It wouldnāt if it resulted in a tyranny of the majority, the main reason the founding fathers rejected direct democracy and implemented representative democracy. If the majority were actually white supremacists, would it be a good thing if they elected David Duke as president?
I donāt think I made a call here on the Brexit result, pal.
For the record I thought Remain would win by 1 or 2%.
Oh ok my mistake. Did you watch that clip?
Itās a reasonable approximation, the number of electoral votes a state has (with two exceptions) is based on the number of representatives and senators it has. California has 55 members of congress, so 55 votes. The main problem with a popular vote is that smaller and rural states effectively have no say, although in the electoral college system, it can be argued they have too much say.
A huge percentage of people in DC work in government, they have no desire for change, turkeys and Christmas, and all that.
A huge % of the people who work in DC live in Virginia
Agree on the UK, Labour get a disproportionate number of seats. But that will be changing soon.
One thing you could do is to keep the electoral college itself but divide it proportionally according to the national popular vote. That way you can keep out a David Duke type.
But the USA has just voted for arguably the closest thing to tyranny it has ever voted for, certainly in the modern age via the state voting system.
But the potential tyrannist lost the popular vote.
The state voting/electoral college has just been proven to make it easier for David Duke types to be elected. It completely fails to do what you say its designed to prevent. They will not vote against Trump.
In a country with an executive president, there is no foolproof method of keeping a demagogue out of office. On that basis one could argue to do away with democracy altogether. On the basis that democracy shouldnāt be done away with, itās best to implement it as fairly as possible.
I think you were on here before criticising the Democratsā superdelegate system which was designed to stop a candidate like George McGovern getting the nomination again. That doesnāt tally with what you claim to believe about the electoral college.
No he didnāt, youāre just parroting what you read on vox.
Trumpās rhetoric in the early stages of the Republican primaries was clumsy and in some cases misinterpreted. That is what you would expect from someone who has not been a politician i.e. a trained liar.
The most common charge against Trump (and his supporters) is that he is a racist. A racist is someone who believes that one race is superior to another. I donāt have time to explain why Trump is not a racist, but this article from a liberal publication should help you see things more clearly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-deutsch/no-donald-trump-isnt-a-ra_b_10417888.html
The Democrats had the wrong candidate. Simple as that. People just donāt like her.
4 Likes
Iām quite capable of my own thoughts, pal.
If Trump had not said the horrible demagogic things heās said, there wouldnāt be a problem.
If a Muslim preacher said all Christians should be stopped from entering the US and singled out Irish illegal immigrants and chanted āsend 'em back!ā whose fault would it be for there being a public image of him as a crazy racist bigot? The mediaās? No, of course not. It would be his own fault.
If somebody uses incitement to hatred and others commit hate crimes as a result, is the person using the hate speech innocent? Should they be able to say ābut I didnāt commit the hate crime itself?ā No. of course not.
Youāre using your own highly technical definition of racism here as a deflection. By that definition anybody could use the n word and claim not to be racist by saying they donāt consider it a racist word and that they donāt consider white people to be superior to black people, and that the n word is a merely a word, and how can a word in and of itself be racist?
But that would clearly be absurd.
Trump was heavily involved in the birther movement which sought to de-legitimise the first black President.
The birther movement is undoubtedly racist.
Using hate speech against Mexicans and Muslims as he has done is quite obviously racist.
Trumpās comments about David Dukeās endorsement of him have been incredibly weasel and mealy mouthed.
What kind of a message do you think that gives to black people and other ethnic minorities?
The Ku Klux Klan have announced a parade in celebration of Trumpās victory.