Trump 2020!

For discussion about modern politics, politicians, and political and social trends and policies

What do you think?

Poll closed Dec 27, 2020.
  1. Agree

  2. Disagree

  3. Left's Trump derangement syndrome

Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. California is a pretty amazing place with tons of diversity that much is for sure.
    MLMVSS and Deleted Account like this.
  2. Agreed! :) aside from the high cost of living, I love my home state. It's beautiful.
    MLMVSS and Deleted Account like this.
  3. Mmm dear castielle, i don’t mean any this hypothesis personally; far from it. I hope you understand.

    In fact, from a personal point of view it does seem a bit a harsh, reminds me of the concentration camps they made for Japanese Americans during wwii.

    I was making a financial comparison as to why one state thrives and another dives. It was not meant to be a political solution similar to the Palestine vs Israel conflict.

    I said previously stated seceding will never happen.

    Plus it would mean the border wall has to get modified. Lol
    Deleted Account likes this.
  4. You'll need one to keep everyone in Texas from leaving. J/K! I love Texans.
    need4realchg likes this.
  5. I know you didn't mean it personally, but it just seemed a bit glib to me, as if California could fall off the face of the earth and nobody would miss it. Which of course kind of rubbed me the wrong way.
    12ove and need4realchg like this.
  6. Lool!

    I will trade George w bush for your Ralph Nader... or my personal favorite “ron paul.”

    “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”— Antonin Scalia, late Supreme Court Justice
    Deleted Account likes this.
  7. I understand that but with respect to something like social issues which has more impact on them at the state level? The president or the local lawmakers? If it's the lawmakers then the presidency wouldn't seem to be as important, at least with respect to state politics and laws. If it's social issues at the national level then I guess he becomes important but even then, it still seems like states make decisions with respect to laws perfectly fine without the input of the president. I mean, IDK, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just going with the little knowledge I have.
    Deleted Account likes this.
  8. 12ove

    12ove Fapstronaut

    Depressing....very little hope for future humans by the looks of the poll and general discussion here.
  9. Here's just one of many views. :) see if it makes more sense.

    "The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is a basis for the "laboratories of democracy" concept, because the Tenth Amendment assigns most day-to-day governance responsibilities, including general "police power", to the state and local governments. Because there are 50 semi-autonomous states, different policies can be enacted and tested at the state level without directly affecting the entire country. As a result, a diverse patchwork of state-level government practices is created. If any one or more of those policies are successful, they can be expanded to the national level by acts of Congress."
    need4realchg and Deleted Account like this.
  10. I honestly don't have a ton of knowledge on this myself, but I just wonder what is the point really? Both are important in their own ways, so people should care about both. If they care about both, all their bases will be covered and it won't matter which one is more or less important.
    Deleted Account likes this.
  11. That sounds really great. That makes a lot more sense. That's how it should be IMO.
    Deleted Account likes this.
  12. I guess you're right. I was just a little confused as to why the presidency is seen as so important when state politicians and local lawmakers are the ones that really make the decisions that affect each state but all in all, yes, they both all have their own functions and they're both important in their own way.

  13. Presidents have veto power. As a single person they can undo the will of + 500 elected representatives.

    They can also create super minorities , elevating a small group to top dog.

    They set the agenda for the country.

    They are the enforcer for the other two parts of government.

    When race integration was declared, it was a president who oversaw the execution of the new civil rights laws, especially when state authorities in the north like Boston public school district , or the south like Birmingham or most famously when Little Rock’s governor stubbornly opposed it. The president decides whether to enforce the existing law.

    The opposite is also true, for example president Obama deciding not to uphold doma (defense of marriage act) paved the way for same-sex marriage. In that case it was a president actively ignoring the law; similar to sanctuary city domains. President Trump, in his zeal to undo Obama’s equality zeal, reversed the military’s stance to transsexuals being able to have govt surgeries for gender reassignment.

    It’s the president that often times negotiate treaties with other countries on our behalf. Cuba’s ability to have planes land from the US (in my view a good thing) happened because of a presidents view; single-handedly changed a 50 year embargo. Or Trump’s North Korea lounge ( it wasn’t a summit). But it is what only a president can do.

    President can take military action without congressional approval within a short duration of time.

    They can do a lot of damage when unrestrained. Hence why gridlock is such a valuable tool at times.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2019
  14. Oh OK, I didn't know all of this. Thanks for informing me. I assumed too much too soon with the little knowledge I had. It seems a bit risky to put so much power in the hands of one person though... the power should be in the hands of each state IMO, that way I think the risk for corruption would be minimized.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2019
    Deleted Account and need4realchg like this.
  15. Yep. The founders were primarily concerned with excessive power of unelected officials. After all we were the first to not have a king post-renaissance .... Hence the separation of powers. Presidents cannot make laws or judge the validity of a law.

    Presidents can do what we call executive orders (Mini decisions ) designed to resolve and issue and give Congress time to react. Valid for a few months at the most.

    But excessive use of this tool is a corruption of power and weakens our democratic balanced system no matter who uses it.

    Same is true for declaring a state of emergency and declaring martial law to militarize the border.—- this is an abuse.

    Same is true for declaring supply of steel a national emergency and then raising the tariffs on foreign suppliers and raiding prices on American goods. This is an abuse.

    These are example of bad abuses — and I’m generally a laissez faire market guy.

    Trump had plenty of bad apples in his basket ; either from ignorance or from narcissism squared. But either way, he is not a pope— he is accountable to the people. As any other elected Billionaire/millionaire is held accountable for what they claim to do.

    Other elected billionaires:
    Putin, uh ?
    Bruce raner Gov of Illinois
    Mark Dayton, gov of Minnesota
    Gov bill haslam of Tennessee
    Gov Jim Justice of W. Virginia

    Elected millionaires:
    Dick blumenthal 70m
    Vernon Buchanan 75 m
    Mark Werner 92m
    John Delaney 94m
    Michael McCaul 113m
    Rick Scott Gov of Florida 232m
    Darrell Issa 232 m
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2019
    Deleted Account likes this.
  16. That's the challenge isn't it? How to bar corruption and excessive use of power in a democratic system but that's why there's the separation of powers with Congress and the Supreme Court as well but more so Congress. Still though, even they have their own corruption to deal with and they don't always keep Trump in check like they should. Nonetheless, thanks for explaining this. I'm learning a lot.
    need4realchg likes this.
  17. MLMVSS

    MLMVSS Fapstronaut

    Tulsi is such a sweetheart and the smartest candidate in those debates. Marianne was interesting lol, she reminds me of my hippie friends. She's more about love rather than the craziness of everyone else. Well, she is crazy, but she's not psycho, if that makes sense?

    I mean, my opinion is pretty much worthless but if anyone other than Tulsi or Trump wins, the USA is in peril. Lol

    That's because "certain people" (who shall remain nameless) haven't found this thread yet. :p
    need4realchg and Deleted Account like this.
  18. MLMVSS

    MLMVSS Fapstronaut

    Vermont was also; I've a mate from there (who is anti-Trump) who always states this and wishes they'd break off again and have Bernie as leader lol.

    Sounds like your politicians have been going against this in the name of "national security" for awhile now.
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2019
    Deleted Account likes this.
  19. I liked tulsi too. she’s looked presidential.

    If we can be this civil in disagreement why can’t the other kids ? Lol.
    MLMVSS likes this.
  20. Hros

    Hros Fapstronaut

    Crazy Marianne? Sounds like a Trumpian nickname... ;)
    MLMVSS likes this.

Share This Page