Individual-1, a joke or a threat? (talk Trump)

[Svartalf]

[Cunt]

The US does not refer to "the voting system". It never has. You're just making things up because you don't have a case that can withstand honest discourse.

Honest?

OK, honestly, the majority who you claim don't want the wall, don't get to dictate.

The US 'decision' about Trump wasn't the majority, and wasn't democratic - it was according to the US election laws, and you don't like the results, so you will endlessly whinge about how it should have gone your way.

The US voting was done, and the decision was Trump. He campaigned - and WON, based on saying he would build a wall.

It was approved years ago, when the Dems said that if Regan would give their illegal immigrant friends some kind of amnesty, they would allow it. Turns out they are welchers, so I hope the Republicans don't bend this time. Democrats are ALL over the illegals, as if the illegal aliens are somehow critical to their getting elected again.

Maybe they are. Maybe that's why there are 'sanctuary cities', turning illegals into voters.

Or maybe a lot of this noise is because the Dems are REALLY bad at being good losers.

[Cunt]

Cunt wrote:

The difference is significant, and meant to prevent a few big ridiculous cities from exerting their will on the entire country.

So, the votes of people in "big ridiculous cities" are naturally worth less than upstanding country folk, presumably because in the cities they're poor, shiftless or black, or all 3, and don't deserve to have a say in issues best left to their betters...

What part of "majority" don't you fucking understand?

What part of 'electoral college' don't you fucking understand?

I know what a majority would mean. If the US was a democracy, it would mean something more.

The electoral college, as I understand it, was made to prevent the 2 or 3 biggest cities from dictating policy for people who live far away, under different circumstances.

Are you trying to suggest that the city folk (the ones you describe as 'poor, shiftless or black') should dictate policy for country folk?

Are country folk just too stupid (by virtue of their not having dense populations) to have a say in how their government runs?

[Tero]

Walls:
The idea of walling off a nation, either to stop immigration flows or foreign invaders, has broad historical appeal — from Roman Emperor Hadrian's stone wall to Israel's West Bank wall and Northern Ireland's divide between its Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods. However, walls are often more symbolic barriers than practical ones. The Germans just marched around the French Maginot Line to invade Belgium, and the Manchurians repeatedly broke through the Great Wall of China.
(USA Today)

[Seabass]

So I'm not doing the exact same thing, and nowhere have I apologized for any of these fools, but nice try at false equivalence Cunt. Just remember, you're the guy saying

It's fun to watch.

I hope my US friends can enjoy it as much as we who live outside the country.

Which comes across as just a little callous toward the poor border control folks out doing a hard job for no pay. Maybe you should focus less on trivialities like Trump's posturing and where Pelosi vacationed

You admit that both are at fault, then insist that if Trump doesn't accept the offer Pelosi crafted (which she knows he will reject) then you want to blame him again.

Trumps posturing is no more disgusting than Pelosi's.

Both should have their pay cut until they go back to work.

Oh wait - Trump already gave up his salary...well, maybe Pelosi will do the right thing, give up her salary until they stop fucking around.

As to the wall, I think it's pretty clear that walls work (prisons, borders, mansions etc.) and that the US wants them.

Again, why not do everything they can to stop illegal entry? I mean, unless the Dems somehow benefit from having non-citizens in the country illegally...it sure looks like that...

The Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS. They control everything, but you want to place equal blame on the Dems?

There's a fine line between contrarian and dumbass.

[Svartalf]

the electoral college is obsolete, biased, and antidemocratic.

[Seabass]

The electoral college, as I understand it, was made to prevent the 2 or 3 biggest cities from dictating policy for people who live far away, under different circumstances.

You understand it wrong. And even if you didn't, it's still a terrible idea to make some votes worth more than others.

[Sean Hayden]

The US does not refer to "the voting system". It never has. You're just making things up because you don't have a case that can withstand honest discourse.

Honest?

OK, honestly, the majority who you claim don't want the wall, don't get to dictate.

They do however counter your claim that the US wants a wall.

As for the rest of your response, I don't know what to say. It's weird to me that you even want to make the argument that because a president has been elected his campaign promises should be fulfilled, and furthermore, that they represent the will of the people --via magic I suppose.

I'm just going to stick to pointing out mistakes.

[Brian Peacock]

And the contrarian will continue to issue random challenges on disparate and irrelevant matters until you forget exactly what it was they got wrong.

[Sean Hayden]

--I'm not alone, yes!

[Cunt]

The Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS. They control everything, but you want to place equal blame on the Dems?

There's a fine line between contrarian and dumbass.

Yeah...the Dems are hilarious. Most people I know would rather not choose republican, but SO MANY do, because the Dems are so obviously fuckity.

But the Democrats being big losers lately (in most recent elections, anyway) isn't the point. The point is that both sides are holding onto this government shutdown, and both sides could end it by agreeing.

BOTH are responsible. Just because the democrats have been losing so hard for these last few elections doesn't absolve them of responsibility. Equal blame for this issue.

You really want that line between contrarian and dumbass to land such that you are safely on one side of it, but with blame for this particular issue falling on both sides, you can't manage it. Every time you try to blame one side though, it shows your blind spots.

I heard Trump take responsibility for his part in this (one of MANY in our lifetime) government shutdown. I didn't hear the Democrats accept their responsibility.

This is theater, more than anything. What bugs me the most is that those putting on the show, are not the ones who will suffer direct consequences.

Will Pelosi miss a paycheck? Shumer? Trump?

As I pointed out earlier, Trump won't, because he has donated his salary. Those other two...the Democrats...are they getting their salary cut? Or are they enjoying regular pay while others suffer the consequences of their little snit-party?

[Cunt]

the electoral college is obsolete, biased, and antidemocratic.

They would be MUCH better off with the French system. I don't know much about it. Is it a democracy? How is it doing? Do the citizens seem to like it? Or do they burn the flags of the organization which runs the French democracy?

The electoral college is hated by everyone who loses elections in the US.

The electoral college, as I understand it, was made to prevent the 2 or 3 biggest cities from dictating policy for people who live far away, under different circumstances.

You understand it wrong. And even if you didn't, it's still a terrible idea to make some votes worth more than others.

Is it? Should an illegal immigrant have a vote that counts more than a retired police officer, who paid their taxes for all of a long career?

Should a voter in New York be allowed to dictate development policies on a farmer who operates in Texas?

The electoral college, since I understand it wrong, must have a different definition. Why not tell me what you understand about it? Give me your best, unbiased attempt to 'plain language' explain it. I mean, unless you don't know either...

[Seabass]

because he has donated his salary.

So magnanimous, that one...

[Svartalf]

I don't know if the French system of two round majority vote is superior, but what I do know, is that democracy means one man, one vote, and any system where the votes of some is made to matter more than the votes of others whether it's because underpopulated constituencies are overvalued compared to highly populated ones, or any other reason or modality, it is the antinomy of true democracy.

[Cunt]

because he has donated his salary.

So magnanimous, that one...

I wonder, if you looked at politicians, and their wealth before, and after gaining office, if that would make some of them look creepy and dishonest?
Like if the Clintons served the public their whole careers, but were somehow filthy rich...that would be suspicious. Or if a huge drop-off in donations took place immediately after Hillary lost the election. That would look suspicious.

Or if Trump was filthy rich already, and lost some net worth after his years in the public office, would that make you less suspicious?

Oh wait, I remember you now. You are an 'Orange-Man-Bad' NPC. I should remember that earlier in our conversations. It would save me time.