The link between rainfall and assassinations in Roman times

Blah, blah, blah. More one-liner BS from the country that produces it the most - because they haven't the faintest understanding of how a debate-forum works ...

Do come back when you've learned the meaning of the word debate ... !

But Hillary WON THE POPULAR-VOTE ELECTION and by a substantial margin!

What Replicant-dorks do not understand is how the Electoral College is unfair, undemocratic and therefore illegitimate ...

 

More blah, blah, blah from the master of the art ...

 

Yes, but that's about all.

And history has shown marvelously well that monarchies have subdued people and are no real way to run a country. Why, ever, do you think America had a revolution?

Because of a tiny but relevant notion called, "Taxation without representation".

And the real pity of it all, more than two centuries later, we still do not know how to elect our representatives without manipulating the process with gerrymandering, BigMoney Advertizing on the BoobTube, and a non-representative Electoral College.

Yes, the country is back in shape economically. Unemployment is acceptably low, and the Really Rich are raking in their millions by means of far-too-low upper-income taxation*.

But more that 43 million American men, women and children remain incarcerated below the Poverty Threshold**. (That, btw, is the population of both California and Alabama combined.)

Politically, the rot is still there in its intestines - and we actually think the US is the Greatest Nation on Earth? Because of our warped mentality that only functions in superlatives ...

*See here: Distribution of net Household Wealth
**See here: What is the current poverty rate in the United States?

 

For once you are both right and wrong.

The Constitution is no Bible. Except in the US.

It has anchored us into an unfair undemocratic system, because of the Electoral College that has manipulated the Presidential election in favor of the popular-vote loser at least four times in the nation's history.

Four times (too many) the loser of the popular-vote - the ONLY QUALIFYING VOTE IN ANY OTHER DEMOCRACY ON EARTH - failed to win the presidency in a supposedly "national vote".

Go tell that to anybody living in a Real Democracy, and they'll laugh in your face. Then tell them how it is written in concrete because the Constitution is untouchable without a general referendum in all states.

And they will laugh yet again in your face.

Some of us Yanks - like you and certainly not me - have one foot cemented in the 18th century Constitution.

Which was not voted by the people in the first place, so it need only be changed by Congress in the second place (or, better yet, by a plebiscite vote of the entire nation)...

 

@LafayetteBis Don't be mistaken, money is the core of every elections in every country. A democracy isn't very different of a plutocracy. Who controle the medias, controle the people, and there is few indenpendant medias, they all belong to someone.
Almost every politician has to bow to the corporations, some billionaires, because they hold the opinion through their propaganda. We speak of propaganda as if it's something specific to wars, propaganda is the base of democratic capitalist regime. Our brains are constantly on attack of commercials. In the streets, on the tv, in the movie theater, at the radio. But don't mistaken me, I'm not a commie.

Most elections are for me an utter joke, especially in presidential regime. It's giving power to a little tyran. They spend some month professing lies, then for their promises, they got tremendous power for 2, 4 years. Then 4 years later, they will says other lies, false promises. It's just being a slave who chose his master every 4 years. You can hope of a better way to elect your master. But in the end, the process is the same, it's choosing a master based on some blurried promisses, it's giving some limited power to someone but their is no true counterpart.m

There is few politician who abused of their power who were judged for them. Bush lied to the american people, caused the death of 10 000 young americans in Iraq, caused a disaster in Iraq, and he walked free. Other put you in debt, enslaving you to bankers, and they now live a comfortable life.

Democracy isn't really a regime based on rationnality. It's based on your desires. That's interesting to read on old philosophers. Philosophers from asia to old greek and roman world, christian philosophers, they came to the same conclusion. Desires are dangerous, they hurt ourselves, and a life consecrated to satisfy our desires lead us to our ruin. And that's the base of democracies. Liars, manipulators making other people they will satisfy their pity desire.

That's what I think is appreciable in Trump, he is probably not the best leader for your country, but at the opposite of some politician who are remorseless, empathiless manipulators who manage to hide their monstrosity under a mask of sweet talking, he is maskless, and probably, he can be hideous, but he is the "truth of power".

And you can hope for a different way to elect people, it doesn't change a fact about USA (which is true for other countries, like mine in a lesser way). Elections is a way for some people to crush other people. Liberals use elections to hurt conservative, conservative use them to hurt liberals. Black supremacist, colored supremacist and white carpets use elections to hurt white people, white supermacist to hurt colored people.
Elections, especially in the USA, are rarely done "let's build together a more beautifull country". No, liberals want to make a country at their image, image who don't include conservative, they use power as a violent way. Conservative do the same in their own way.

You can change the way of electing people, but that doesn't change that those elections will lead narcissic manipulators to the power, and that those elections is the tool of a half of the country to hurt the other half, sometimes the half who hurt the rest change. But it's still a tool of violence and opression.

 

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote or have you not graduated yet?

 

Where am I wrong? You claim it, but can't name it.

Straw man argument about the Bible. Since we're talking about the US Constitution, obviously it's in the US. Are you really that befuddled?

 

You made the ludicrous claim that socialism is incompatible with the Constitution. Perhaps think more before typing?

 

Ahhh, so you're not offended about fascism, but my comment about socialism. Well that figures.

 

Offended? I just sneered at the stupidity of your comment.

 

I beg to differ.

There is nothing to save the man. He is without virtue or self-control of his instincts.

Moreover, he is sick from birth as his personal history demonstrates. He can neither think nor act beyond his narcissistic tendencies that own and control him.

He is, therefore, a very dangerous person to be sitting in the White House.

May heaven help America ...

 

Can you read English, or are you purposefully blind?

The reference to the bible was because it is unamendable, but the Constitution is not. And it should be, particularly as regards the Electoral College and its dysfunctional nature.

It is defective since inception and unfairly elects candidates who lose the Popular Vote, which is the essence of any political office in the land - except that of the presidency.

It must be neutered to show only the winner of the popular-vote in each state ...

 

Socialism no longer exists anywhere in the world (except perhaps North Korea), so your reference to it is illogical and irrelevant ...

 

On that point I would agree and disagree in the same time. I have the impression he willingly play the dumb, that's why so much of his adversaries largely underestimated him during the election.

On that point, I agree but I think a lot of politician are like that, except they know how to create an illusion of being civilized. In a way, he is less perverse. For instance, he said no on a climate agreement, a lot of politicians says. Here is the point : this agreement is just a "I promiss on nothing" agreement. It doesn't force anyone to do anything. If a lot of politicians agreed to this agreement, it's because it's worth nothing. I think that most of them don't intend to do it anyway. Trump says clearly he don't care of that. On that point he is much less dangerous. A lot of people never cared, but they pretended to care, for their reputation.

We will have to wait 2020 to get some lessons of his mandate. Right now, he didn't started any war, and it's fortunate.

People who don't learn the lessons of history are fated to repeat it. I don't think a lot of people wonder why someone like Trump appeared, beside "the other sides are nazis".

 

Never underestimate the level of dumbness of the Rabid Right.

Over here in Europe, and because of the massive migration, they actually run countries nowadays. People get scared, and when they do, they turn Right - typically here in Europe.

I don't know why in the US. I think its the plain fact that they've had no education in Civics. But, then any country that does not see the patent unfairness of the manner in which we elect presidents is self-blinded ...

 

Obviously I can read and write English and am not blind so you question is indicative of a juvenile mind, a level of maturity somewhere between the late teens and early 20s IMO. Sorry you are so upset with me.

Wrong on both counts. First, Socialism still exists although mostly in a modified form and the DPRK is not a socialist state - it's a dictatorship despite some socialist elements.

 

You could not be more wrong about socialism.

Definition: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Get it ... ?

 

When you graduate, maybe you'll have a fuller understanding than a single definition off your flashcard.

 

Blah, blah, blah.

That's all you're good for ... on you go to Ignore!

 

From me, the problems in democracy come from that kind of mentality.

Obectively, mass migration was a massive failure both for UK and France. So yes, a lot of countries don't want to looks like those failures. Furthermore, France and UK became cultureless when some other countries still have some respect for their own countries.

From my point of view, presidential regimes are problematic themselves. So you can still find other ways to elect a president, that's still problematic.

You should watch this video if you never watched it :

There is some subtitles in english in the options.

 

Awesome!

 

I doubt most Americans would understand what the Rabid Left looked like.

It took three decades for the Communist party to become what it is today - a simple shadow of its former self. Of course, that was helped along by the unification of Europe into the EU.

Europe is nothing but migration. What left England for the US was replaced from all of Europe (and particularly Italy/Spain). The Italian Waiters Association of London was started in the 1870s (or thereabout).

As a result of Brexit, the UK is losing a good many doctors and nurses who will return to their home countries in Europe, where they are needed badly. (Stoopid is as stoopid does and Brexit was really, really stoopid.)

I don't think that 8-years is enough to install a regime, which requires a repetition of generations.

But the way we elect a PotUS is disgraceful, and makes us look real bad to the rest of the world ...

 

Communism isn't the new ideology of the left "diversity" is the new one. When some part of the left want for instance to condemn people who don't want to use the appropriate gender pronoun, that's a dangerous way.
The left isn't directly violent, but they are indirectly violent when they "import" more violent people and let other people suffer. I highly suspect leftists deciders to have encouraged mass migration because they were totally aware of the phenomenon of ethnic vote, and used it to keep controle of the voters.

There was migrations in every part of the world, that doesn't concern specifically Europe, and it's a biased argument, the fact that there were migration doesn't mean it's good. Furthermore, you're comparing an european migration with an extra european migration with further religious, ideological and physical differences. The history of Europe is very old, and doesn't start with the second half of the 19th century. The 19th century isn't the centuries and centuries of European history.
And honnestly, I think it's a little bit insulting to declare we're nothing but migrations. We have centuries and centuries of artistic, musical and letters traditions. We have an identity beyond migration. For me that kind of declarations are purely peremptory.

Another choice is too to train more doctors and nurses. Some countries aren't that happy to pay a lot for people to become doctors and then had them flee to richer countries.

That can happens very quickly.

The rest of the world has a lot of other difficulties, and very few people are interested in the way you elect people. What makes USA look bad is other things. But you can't build your life or your country on the "what other people would say".

 

No, I don't buy that notion.

Poverty below the Mexican border throughout Central America and even South America is real and tangible.

People will do anything to escape it and they need no enticement ...

 

I don't blame the migrants, I can understand that, however that's not the place who make them poor. Poverty is a more complexe problems, and simply giving money or moving away can't fix that.
It's understanble that some of them want to move in a country where they can find a job who could feed all their family by sending back money to their native land if not more.

I blame the open border policy.