Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[neil999]

Why would he? I already have. It's clear you have no understanding of the Electoral College.

Carry on.

what did you think of my idea of you having to win both electoral college and popular vote? and if you dont then you have a run-off/need support of another candidate...i think its worth it ,as it seems a pretty rare event anyway and when it has happened in recent times it has been 2 rather polarising candidates winning(bush and trump)

 

[abelard]

Why would he? I already have. It's clear you have no understanding of the Electoral College.

Carry on.

 

[SNova]

It's a very flawed system though. Someone could be elected president by winning only 11 states.

Most systems are flawed to be fair.

 

[Prevenger17]

It's a very flawed system though. Someone could be elected president by winning only 11 states.

But what's the alternative? Someone could win an election by just winning a few cities. Or by just being a democrat

 

[ilikecheese]

But what's the alternative? Someone could win an election by just winning a few cities. Or by just being a democrat

Why not use both?

Basically you're arguing that the majority of the people in a country should not have a voice.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

I don't remember the IRA flying planes into buildings in New York, or wiping out kids in a school in Russia....Or blowing up lorries packed with explosives in a Baghdad bazaar, or murdering tourists in Tunisia & Egypt, or kidnapping young girls in Nigeria, or selling women into sexual slavery in Kyrgyzstan, Somalia & Pakistan, or beheading people and posting it on social media...et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But that's just my spin on it.

Do you remember them blowing holes in Manchester and Warrington?

I seem to remember we realised that the vast majority of Irish people (including Republicans) did not want to cause us all harm and so we didn't ban them from entering the country.

Why so different with Arabs?

 

[tsubaki]

Behave. Most people recognise the scale of the risks of immigration versus the benefits immigration brings, economically and in humanitarian terms. Even if the benefits are questionable by some (not by me) we have a moral obligation to look after our fellow humans. We who live in relative prosperity and security must extend our privileges to those fleeing war and insecurity.

The problem with this is that Western governments have (largely because they doesn't want to pay to deal with the consequences of their own actions) failed to offer that support in the way that it was traditionally offered and which does the least harm (ie: by a properly funded system of refugee camps).

Instead we have the nonsense that is people being encouraged by some European leaders of the hope of a better life, when all they will be doing is delivering themselves, at grave personal risk, onto the very bottom rung of societies that do not understand them, or have the means to support them properly, and where there is very little opportunity for significant advancement even for those that are already there. They also fail to recognize that those same European leaders will look to send them back to wherever the moment that they can get away with it.

Combine all that with the shameful failure of the immigration system to deal with people fairly and you have the disaster which is unfolding before our eyes.

 

[Prevenger17]

Basically you're arguing that the majority of the people in a country should not have a voice.

I'm not. And for the most part, the electoral college has worked in the sense that the majority, more often than not, vote in the winner. But the US isn't a single country with a common culture, it's 50 disparate states in a union. If you go by the majority vote, there are plenty of smaller states whose individual character and opinions would become next to irrelevant

 

[neil999]

But what's the alternative? Someone could win an election by just winning a few cities. Or by just being a democrat

please see above, i have already sorted this...just waiting a call from trump for my new job

 

[ilikecheese]

I'm not. And for the most part, the electoral college has worked in the sense that the majority, more often than not, vote in the winner. But the US isn't a single country with a common culture, it's 50 disparate states in a union. If you go by the majority vote, there are plenty of smaller states whose individual character and opinions would become next to irrelevant

I don't know. It's failed 5 times too many IMO.

 

[The Esk]

It's a legitimate question, not one to scoff at. Would you change your opinion if it were your loved one who suffered as a direct result of your migrant policy?

What number number of British victims would be acceptable to you? We've seen it in Germany with Merkel's disastrous migrant policy. We've seen it in France.

To me, one British victim is too many. I don't think we can accurately screen these migrants. And therefore there is a risk.

If I wouldn't risk my own family being harmed I'm not going to risk my fellow countrymen's family being harmed.

I've said I'd like to find other ways to help.

My wife and kids travel on the tube every day. My wife rides a bike in Central London (and is 50 times more likely to come to harm by doing so) - we all take calculated risks every day. The idea that we should not allow immigration because of the margin increase in terrorism just doesn't wash with me. If we do that we allow the terrorists to win.

I'm interested in your idea that a British life is more valuable than say the death of a child or Mother in Aleppo. How does that work? Naturally one values the life of a loved one or friend over a stranger because of the relationship, but beyond that, on nationality?Are you serious?

We do extend our privileges but we shouldn't put our national security at risk and in allowing tens of thousands in to the country. Don't they want to stand and fight for there country like what our grandfathers done which has give us our privileges.

The increase in risk is marginal, and the idea that ordinary people in Syria (for example) can stand up to the warring factions, the Syrian Government and the Russians is just ludicrous - these people are fleeing for their lives.

 

[neil999]

wikipedia article from 2020 -

electoral college - this system was replaced when america elected trump(yes really!) as president, everyone realised neil999's(everton chairman, billionaire philanthropist and all round good guy) system was much more betterer

 

[Moomin]

I don't remember the IRA flying planes into buildings in New York, or wiping out kids in a school in Russia....Or blowing up lorries packed with explosives in a Baghdad bazaar, or murdering tourists in Tunisia & Egypt, or kidnapping young girls in Nigeria, or selling women into sexual slavery in Kyrgyzstan, Somalia & Pakistan, or beheading people and posting it on social media...et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But that's just my spin on it.

So you are saying one terrorist groups actions are ok but not another.

It's all wrong, all terrorist deaths are wrong. My issue has always been about the innocent people of Syria who by the way are not all Muslim, which going by your rant seems to be the issue for you.

Not all Muslim's are terrorists, just like the Irish are not all IRA.

I'd hope people don't look at me and judge me for the atrocities the British Empire done in the past.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

Do you remember them blowing holes in Manchester and Warrington?

I seem to remember we realised that the vast majority of Irish people (including Republicans) did not want to cause us all harm and so we didn't ban them from entering the country.

Why so different with Arabs?

Arabs?

Fairly definitive, isn't it? I didn't mention arabs...

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

So you are saying one terrorist groups actions are ok but not another.

Did I? Go on, then...