Road rules2 mins ago
Donald Trump
Why do so much of the media lie and wish to denigrate Donald Trump? Isn't he the best US President for generations?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
https:/
The poor sod just has not got a clue what he is talking about.
He has been voted 'The Worst President In History'
https:/
The poor sod just has not got a clue what he is talking about.
He has been voted 'The Worst President In History'
https:/
The study, conducted every four years, surveys social science researchers from the American Political Science Association’s section on presidents and executive politics. It asks the experts to rank each president’s greatness on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being great, 50 being average, and 0 being a total failure.
May I suggest that there cant be that many social science researchers so the sample size is minimal compared to the millions of votes cast for DJT by the registered electors.
May I suggest that there cant be that many social science researchers so the sample size is minimal compared to the millions of votes cast for DJT by the registered electors.
Eddie; your links are to the BBC and (cor blimey!) the Independent.
I imagine that in the BBC spun 'gaffe' he is talking about people on welfare using food stamps - which seems sensible that they identify themselves, but on that I am not certain, and they avoid any context.
The Independent's quoted 'survey', is so stupid it doesn't warrant comment.
I suggest you spent 20 minutes, watch the above video and then come back.
I imagine that in the BBC spun 'gaffe' he is talking about people on welfare using food stamps - which seems sensible that they identify themselves, but on that I am not certain, and they avoid any context.
The Independent's quoted 'survey', is so stupid it doesn't warrant comment.
I suggest you spent 20 minutes, watch the above video and then come back.
as I have said before all the luvvies in the media love politicians, they want to be lied to and obfuscated, they want politician speak, talk loads and say nothing, they want broken promises. Trump is the very antithesis of that because he's not a politician. He tells the truth, he does what he says he's going to to, he's turned the US round in 18 months. TROB and the luvvies hate that. Yes I agree He's the best president since Ronaldo, still time to get better, I hope he gets another term because that will encourage other non politicians to get into politics. How I wish we had him doing brexit for us.
Winning under "the system" is acceptable ? Take Cambodia, Hun Sen won for the Nth time as nobody else was allowed in, it was a choice of one party, just like the old days in the Deutsche Reich after 1933 and the USSR, and in present day China. If in the UK Labour had a similar monopoly on power through crafty manipulation of the electoral system would the same people still be encouraging celebration or at least quiet acceptance ? There is democracy and then there is democracy. And Churchill is said to have stated that it is a lousy form of government but that it happens to be the best currently available.
It's a bold claim that Trump is the best President for generations when he's only had two years yet and has -- so far -- yet to deliver on two of his "Big three" priorities, of Healthcare Reform and Infrastructure. I say "Healthcare reform" but really that one would be a reversion. Infrastructure in the US badly needs addressing, though, and it's a shame that Trump hasn't got around to it yet.
Dear dear, the sour grapes on the systems used carries on. The US put that system in place to prevent the whole country being run by liberal Townies. And it clearly works, there really is nothing wrong with it and if it had been the other way round you would be hailing it as the best thing since sliced bread.
IS The Donald the best President? Too early to say at the moment but he is certainly off to a racing start and has really shaken politics up if nothing else, which is a good thing as it has got very stale and complacent in the West.
IS The Donald the best President? Too early to say at the moment but he is certainly off to a racing start and has really shaken politics up if nothing else, which is a good thing as it has got very stale and complacent in the West.
"In the long run the EC is theoretically broken and should be replaced or reformed -- not because Trump won but because anyone can win, theoretically, with only a quarter of the support of the country."
The problem is no system is 100% perfect and never will. What a system should do is prevent one party from winning continually and preferably open the race to multiple parties (our system we are stuck with two half parties at the moment). I think the EC goes a long way to achieve this so what do you think they could do (bearing in mind the geography and population densities of the USA)?
The problem is no system is 100% perfect and never will. What a system should do is prevent one party from winning continually and preferably open the race to multiple parties (our system we are stuck with two half parties at the moment). I think the EC goes a long way to achieve this so what do you think they could do (bearing in mind the geography and population densities of the USA)?
That may be true superficially, but it is also possible that a system is objectively broken. As I have stated, the US system is a prime example of that. That "we" lost out this time looks bad, but for a long time people thought it might go the other way -- that is, Clinton winning the College but losing the popular vote. As a matter of fact, the Don was only mad in 2012 because he erroneously thought that Obama had pulled off the same trick of winning the College but losing the popular vote.
As a result, *both* sides can think they are screwed by the system. And both are right. One of these days, perhaps, people will get around to fixing it -- but, of course, the winner has no incentive to kick away the ladder that got them there.
As a result, *both* sides can think they are screwed by the system. And both are right. One of these days, perhaps, people will get around to fixing it -- but, of course, the winner has no incentive to kick away the ladder that got them there.
Your second reply hadn't appeared when I was typing my last, so apologies for "dodging" the question about how to improve the system.
In fact the Electoral College (EC) probably makes it easier to lock in the two-party system, rather than harder, so the solution is simple: get rid of it. The primary purpose of the EC was, anyway, nothing to do with political parties but all about trying to balance the rights of small states against larger ones. This is, though, already achieved by the make-up of the Senate (two members per state, regardless of size) and House of Representatives (somewhat, but not exactly, proportional to population), while anyway States also have other constitutional rights protecting the smaller ones from imposition by larger ones.
That is to say, the problem that the EC is meant to address doesn't really exist. A president could therefore be elected directly by popular vote without undermining the principles of the US Constitution.
So far there has only been one election (in modern history, ie since WWI) where a third-party candidate had a decent shot at winning, that being 1992 when Ross Perot ran. I don't think he would have won even without the EC, but one wonders how much of a difference it would have made to his chances had the wave of popular support he enjoyed not been impeded by EC considerations. In the event, Perot received almost 20 million votes and got exactly nothing in the EC, while Bush Sr. received only 5 million votes less than Clinton but got less than half of the EC for his troubles.
But apart from 1992 (and, to a lesser extent, 1912), third-party candidates have been virtually absent -- and, more to the point, even when they have done relatively well in the popular vote, they have come absolutely nowhere in the EC. It's therefore a mistake to claim that the EC in any way has enhanced the prospects of third parties.
In fact the Electoral College (EC) probably makes it easier to lock in the two-party system, rather than harder, so the solution is simple: get rid of it. The primary purpose of the EC was, anyway, nothing to do with political parties but all about trying to balance the rights of small states against larger ones. This is, though, already achieved by the make-up of the Senate (two members per state, regardless of size) and House of Representatives (somewhat, but not exactly, proportional to population), while anyway States also have other constitutional rights protecting the smaller ones from imposition by larger ones.
That is to say, the problem that the EC is meant to address doesn't really exist. A president could therefore be elected directly by popular vote without undermining the principles of the US Constitution.
So far there has only been one election (in modern history, ie since WWI) where a third-party candidate had a decent shot at winning, that being 1992 when Ross Perot ran. I don't think he would have won even without the EC, but one wonders how much of a difference it would have made to his chances had the wave of popular support he enjoyed not been impeded by EC considerations. In the event, Perot received almost 20 million votes and got exactly nothing in the EC, while Bush Sr. received only 5 million votes less than Clinton but got less than half of the EC for his troubles.
But apart from 1992 (and, to a lesser extent, 1912), third-party candidates have been virtually absent -- and, more to the point, even when they have done relatively well in the popular vote, they have come absolutely nowhere in the EC. It's therefore a mistake to claim that the EC in any way has enhanced the prospects of third parties.
