Yes, I could see folks believing that you were fucked by/dumped by Donny and you are bitter and angry with him for that.
Just present all your posts in this thread as evidence....
Moderator: Referees
Yes, I could see folks believing that you were fucked by/dumped by Donny and you are bitter and angry with him for that.
... because you know what evidence was presented.
Please don't encourage Nucklehead's wild fantasies, if anything he needs just the opposite (an intervention).
I thought your post on this was pretty balanced, but I want to add some other cons with proportional representation (which might be seen as independent of your points or corollaries to your points).Per wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:02 am There are pros and cons with both systems.
...
Proportional voting basically has opposite pros and cons.
Good things are that all voters receive a voice in parliament and that each vote carries the same weight as all other votes. A party that has 15% of the voters get 15% of the seats in parliament. This is fair representation. Also, gerrymandering is rendered useless. Since the seats are distributed based on the percentage of the total votes, it doesn't matter if you live in a district/riding with people who think like you or not. Your vote will count.
The bad thing about proportional voting is basically twofold as well:
1) not as clear ties between candidates and ridings: in order to get seats in parliament that corresponds to the share of votes each party recieves, you need bigger ridings, that elect multiple representatives, and you usually need to add a number of seats that are outside of the riding system, to adjust for discrepancies between the outcome in votes/seats. Thsi means that the connection between voter, riding and candidate gets less clear.
2) weaker governments: since it is harder to get a clear majority in a proportional system, a government must usually be formed by two or more parties forming a coalition. This means compromises must be made, and often parties cannot deliver on all their campaign promises, or if the tensions get to strong, the government will split because of differences that cannot be settled, and a new election must be held.
That being said, many countries in Northern Europe, like Germany and the Scandinavian countries have proportional systems and do rather well in most comparissons, whether regarding GDP per capita, employment, innovation, minorities rights, general happiness or what will you.
Another difference between the two systems is that in the first past the post/winner take all system you tend to get more drastic changes when there is a change of guards. In countries that use the proportional system change is often slower, as you need to get there through building consensus and compromising. Which of those scenarios that is better depends on the eye of the beholder. Change may be good, but so may stability.
Surely you are aware that Robert Mueller III has a federal mandate to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” into Russian meddling?Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:39 am ... please note I was clearly saying Robert Mueller III has absolutely nothing in regards to Russian meddling.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/witch-hunt#EnglishPer wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:30 pmSurely you are aware that Robert Mueller III has a federal mandate to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” into Russian meddling?Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:39 am ... please note I was clearly saying Robert Mueller III has absolutely nothing in regards to Russian meddling.
"witch hunt"
I was wondering when you would go this route.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/ ... ewing.html
(This Manafort/Cohen crap) won’t shake support for Trump among the millions of Americans who voted for him and appreciate his many accomplishments in office.
Here’s why:
Supporters of President Trump are convinced that the Justice Department has been biased against him. They believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to win the 2016 presidential election is politically motivated. They know that the Clinton campaign funded a “dirty tricks” dossier that led to a court warrant allowing surveillance of Trump associates. They know that numerous people working for Mueller had ties to Hillary Clinton and opposed Trump’s election. For this and other reasons, much of the country no longer supports the special counsel and his work.
Trump supporters think an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s actions was inadequate and tainted. The FBI conducted a far too limited investigation of Clinton’s use of her own private computer server to handle her email communications – including classified emails – when she was secretary of state. Clinton then lied about what seems to be a clear security breach. Her aides were granted immunity in the investigation for no apparent purpose, and her interview with the FBI was not recorded in any fashion. On top of that, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met secretly with former President Bill Clinton during the probe of his wife. This all seems highly suspect.
Many Trump supporters believe writer Peter Schweizer disclosed wrongdoing by the Clintons and their foundation. Schweizer is the author of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Business Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” The book documents numerous instances of apparent pay-to-play involving questionable donations to the Clinton Foundation and exorbitant speaking fees paid to former President Bill Clinton by organizations that had received favors from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Trump fans wonder why the investigations into those activities were sidelined by the FBI.
The Mueller probe has yet to disclose any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Democrats are giddy that White House Counsel Don McGahn spoke openly with Mueller’s team, assuming he may have revealed damaging information about President Trump. Trump voters consider the openness indicative of innocence on the part of the president, who approved the conversations. The White House has operated under a cloud of suspicion for well over a year, beset by allegations that are as yet unfounded. Millions of Americans believe, as the president has said, that the Mueller investigation is a witch hunt; two-thirds of the country thinks it should be brought to a close.
The media coverage of the Trump presidency has been almost laughably biased. The persistent focus on “Russia, Russia, Russia” is meant, supporters think, to distract from the accelerating economy and other achievements of the Trump White House.
Trump backers knew they were not voting for a choir boy. If they harbored any such notions, the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape shortly before the 2016 presidential election put those to rest. People do not condone Trump’s language on the tape and his alleged behavior with women, but they do not think it criminal or disqualifying. If Trump follows through on campaign promises, and the country is better off under his guidance, they are willing to look the other way.
Paying a woman to keep mum about an alleged sexual relationship is understandable. Two women received payments from Trump after they claimed to have had consensual sex with him – although he denies their claims. Either way, reaching a financial settlement with the women to not publicly air their charges appears to be a reasonable action by a wealthy married man, much less someone running for office. To many, the payments to the two women do not rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that would justify impeachment of the president and his removal from office.
...
Trump supporters have a sense that Justice Department holdovers from the Obama years – and indeed officials high up in that administration – were furious at Trump’s election and have worked to undermine his administration from Day One.
More importantly, people who voted for Trump are happy with the way our country is going. In recent months, according to Gallup, the percentage of Americans “satisfied” with the direction of the country was higher than at any time since 2005.
People are optimistic, they are upbeat about their finances... (etc)
Well written reasonable post. And what you said about those elected ina proprtional system being more loyal to the party than the riding is sort of what I tried to say with stating there was less of a clear bond between voter/riding and representative.
And also the Russian strategy of fomenting divisiveness in the US and the EU. A large part of the more extreme posts for both Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter stem from Rusdian accounts. One third of tweets regarding Brexit in the months preceding the referendum were made from Russian accounts. And they play both sides! The main strategy is to weaken the fabric of society by creating rifts between the opposing sides on any hot button poitical issue.UWSaint wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 11:23 am ... reason for today's "divisive" politics, a better explanation that gerrymandering can be found by new modes of communication (social media and increasing echo chambers) and the increasing nationalization of politics (i.e., local races decided by the candidates support or condemnation of Trump/Obama/Bush, etc.).
BTW I'm glad you did not disagree with the part where I said the American government has been meddling in foreign elections for decades.
Oh good, the much studied expert on politics Reefer2 has weighed in!
Sure, typical of you.Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:24 pmOh good, the much studied expert on politics Reefer2 has weighed in!
Lol wake up, you've been outed as a "goosestepping stooge" good buddy.
Or don't... hey when morons start having parades you could be a Grand Marshal!!
I have no idea what Mueller has on Trump, but I'm sure he is holding his cards close to his chest.Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:56 pm I'm glad you agree though that after all this time Mueller has absolutely nothing on Trump in regards to Russian meddling.
No, I know. I think that was Donald.Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:56 pm I have been very careful all along not to call Mueller a liberal in any way, shape, or form.