The American Constitution

[rabanito]

Ultras are almost always wrong.

You're right but in this case the (dis-)qualification came from a layman, as it is very often the case.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You're right but in this case the (dis-)qualification came from a layman, as it is very often the case.

Every time I feel down, I go to YouTube and watch experts (i.e., non-laymen) explain how there is no chance in Hell Trump would win, including those with 90% certainty Clinton would. Expert after expert, pundit after pundit. Journalists, diplomats, political scientists, etc.

That said, although I do not claim I am an expert, I am not a layman either. I was educated in the East, and I was educated in the West. I lived and work under socialism, and under capitalism. I read socialist newspapers and I read capitalist ones. It certainly gives me a different perspective than those who only read about it, if at all.

[OmerV]

It appears we’ve been played. Both the Iran and refugee deportation actions have been put on hold, and not only that but Iran now could be a great place!

Well.

Obviously Carlson is a better adviser than either Mike or John, or at least he knows exactly what Donald really cares about. How ‘bout a Trump tower in Tehran? Yep.

And see what a humanitarian Donald is, he’s allowing refugee families a two week reprieve giving Nancy and Mitch some time to... hmm... consider how to twist this to their advantage.

Yep, Donald (with a some help from Carlson) always knows how to pass the buck and make money doing so. Nicely done, ‘gotta admit.

[rabanito]

That said, although I do not claim I am an expert, I am not a layman either. I was educated in the East, and I was educated in the West. I lived and work under socialism, and under capitalism. I read socialist newspapers and I read capitalist ones. It certainly gives me a different perspective than those who only read about it, if at all.

That's great Slobodan.
BUT
A person who qualifies say, the NYT as "ultra-left", probably doesn't know really what "ultra-left" can be.
Something comparable to the socialist regimes you know? Or the socialist papers you read?
Come on...
That's confusing

[RSL]

Every time I feel down, I go to YouTube and watch experts (i.e., non-laymen) explain how there is no chance in Hell Trump would win, including those with 90% certainty Clinton would. Expert after expert, pundit after pundit. Journalists, diplomats, political scientists, etc.

That said, although I do not claim I am an expert, I am not a layman either. I was educated in the East, and I was educated in the West. I lived and work under socialism, and under capitalism. I read socialist newspapers and I read capitalist ones. It certainly gives me a different perspective than those who only read about it, if at all.

Expert: A drip under pressure.

[Alan Klein]

The NYT and WP have for decades favored big government,  social programs,  Democrats,  and the left.   They particularly hate Trump.   Their news is biased against him regularly.   95% of their readership despiseTrump.   Just read their comments after the news articles.

Unfortunately,  the world's media repeat their articles.   So the world gets a distorted view of America and Americans.

Read the Washington Times fir a different perspective.   Bart suggested Reuters to me a couple of years ago for a more factual and balanced news source.   Generally I have with him

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... A person who qualifies say, the NYT as "ultra-left", probably doesn't know really what "ultra-left" can be.
Something comparable to the socialist regimes you know? Or the socialist papers you read? ...

Let me help you. The comparison is in American terms. What’s left in America is probably touching right-of-center in Europe.

American Democrats were “the left” something like 15-20 years ago. Heck, my daughter reminds me that I was pro-Democrats when we arrived to America. She asked what changed. While I changed a bit, getting better and smarter with years, like a good wine , the Democrats changed a lot, to the point that it would be unrecognizable 15-20 years ago. That’s what makes them “ultra-left,” in comparison with themselves, not “socialist regimes.” 

[Peter McLennan]

Ultras are almost always wrong.

Well said.

[Robert Roaldi]

Iran has been a bad actor in the Middle East.  They and their proxies have stirred up war and conflict in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and half a dozen other countries with their terrorist activities.  The last thing we need is for them to be allowed to develop nukes in a few years which they would be allowed to do under the current "deal".  What would "peace" look like when that happens?  Better we nip it in the bud before they actually get the bomb.

Can you name a "good" actor in the Middle East?

One good thing about Iran though is that the 9/11 hijackers weren't from there.

[Alan Klein]

Can you name a "good" actor in the Middle East?

One good thing about Iran though is that the 9/11 hijackers weren't from there.

Yup.  Frankly we should pull out of the ME completely and let the players sort it out by themselves.  We'd save a lot of money we could spend on infrastructure and medical care in America.  We probably should pull out of Europe too and let the countries there handle whatever.  They have the money and strength for it now and that would give us even more money to deal with the Pacific and China.   

[rabanito]

Let me help you. The comparison is in American terms. What’s left in America is probably touching right-of-center in Europe.

There were other hidden conditions. This is a discussion in "American Terms". Now I understand---
Next time it could be "Texan Terms" against "NY Terms" and so on ad infinitum

And now enter Relativity

Using your reasoning if Democrats (Center Right in Europe) are "ultra left" in America, then the Republicans, wide right from the Democrats (European Center Right) would fall automatically on the "Ultra-right" in Europe, something like Hitler (imagine for simplicity changing the WB with the eyedropper. You choose a white point and the other colors fall relative to it - for this reasoning)

I don't see it like that. America is still a great democracy.

Of course this kind of debate brings us nowhere.
Let's do some more Great Photography instead? 

[Rob C]

There were other hidden conditions. This is a discussion in "American Terms". Now I understand---
Next time it could be "Texan Terms" against "NY Terms" and so on ad infinitum

And now enter Relativity

Using your reasoning if Democrats (Center Right in Europe) are "ultra left" in America, then the Republicans, wide right from the Democrats (European Center Right) would fall automatically on the "Ultra-right" in Europe, something like Hitler (imagine for simplicity changing the WB with the eyedropper. You choose a white point and the other colors fall relative to it - for this reasoning)

I don't see it like that. America is still a great democracy.

Of course this kind of debate brings us nowhere.
Let's do some more Great Photography instead? 

Who's gonna cast that first stone?

There has been nothing new or great here for years; there has been nothing great or new almost anywhere I've looked recently. Frankly, it's as if everybody has deserted photography and has become camera/lens/tricks and Photoshop testers instead. What there is, however, is a raised standard of general stuff.

I broke my fast and bought Italian Vogue again some while ago, and all it had was Steven Meisel doing parodies of Steven Meisel. Anybody looked at the Pirelli Calendars of late? Where the friggin' magic these past ten or more years?

The medium seems to me to be as exhausted as I am. At least it makes me feel less like I'm alone in that sad state. The only photographic buzz that's still able to grip me comes from websites showing work by a few of the old greats. To me, they did stuff that's still timeless.

Rob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

America is still a great democracy.

American democracy seems to be defined by what divides people, not by what unites them.

Not exactly what I would label as 'great'.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

America is still a great democracy.

The United States is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic ("if you can keep it" as Ben Franklin said). The French had a democracy after their revolution. Didn't work out too well. Unfortunately, our ignorant left is trying to push us toward becoming a democracy. Several leftist states have abandoned the idea of the Electoral College and say they'll give their state electoral votes to the candidate with a nationwide majority. That approach may run into a small problem with the Supreme Court, but it's an attempt to bring down our Republic.

America is a great constitutional republic.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Congrats, rabanito, you just confirmed the Godwin’s Law.

[Alan Klein]

The United States is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic ("if you can keep it" as Ben Franklin said). The French had a democracy after their revolution. Didn't work out too well. Unfortunately, our ignorant left is trying to push us toward becoming a democracy. Several leftist states have abandoned the idea of the Electoral College and say they'll give their state electoral votes to the candidate with a nationwide majority. That approach may run into a small problem with the Supreme Court, but it's an attempt to bring down our Republic.

America is a great constitutional republic.

The funny thing is that one day, a left Democrat state who has that rule, will have to give their State's electoral vote to the Republican candidate because he got the national popular vote even though their State's local popular vote went for the Democrat.  Watch how fast they do away with that law.

It will make the 2000 Florida "chad" debacle kid's play.  All the State's will be suing themselves in federal court to have the SUpreme Court find their own statutes unconstitutional so they could reverse their electoral votes and give them to the Democrat.  Then the Supreme COurt will be called biased whatever their decision.  What a mess it will be.  Frankl, they should rule the State can apportioned their electoral vote however they want and keep hands off.   

[RSL]

The problem is that the state's voters end up disenfranchised, Alan. The first time a state actually does this and a lawsuit ensues, the thing's gonna zip through the court system and end up in the hands of the Supremes almost immediately, just as Algore's attempt to subvert the electoral process in Florida zipped to the Supremes. Ain't no way this is gonna hold up under the Constitution. We went through this whole argument when the Constitution was adopted.

[Alan Klein]

American democracy seems to be defined by what divides people, not by what unites them.

Not exactly what I would label as 'great'.

Cheers,
Bart

Division and difference of thought is what democracy is all about.  No country of 330 million people think alike.  Doesn't your country and others have many parties?  What's the popular percentage vote of the PM when he is elected?  Probably less votes than Trump got.   

American democracy is "great" in that people still influence politics and power.  It hasn't slipped into autocracy.  After 200 years, we're still a nation of laws protected by a constitutional bill of rights.  That's not bad. 

[JoeKitchen]

The problem is that the state's voters end up disenfranchised, Alan. The first time a state actually does this and a lawsuit ensues, the thing's gonna zip through the court system and end up in the hands of the Supremes almost immediately, just as Algore's attempt to subvert the electoral process in Florida zipped to the Supremes. Ain't no way this is gonna hold up under the Constitution. We went through this whole argument when the Constitution was adopted.

People, or those for this odd pact on popular vote, seem to forget this.  There was many factions fighting over this and states' powers quite intently, and this was the compromise that was devised.  On top of it, many of the founders wrote on the subject, which would certainly be looked at by the Supremes. 

I find it unlikely that this pact, when challenged, would be allowed to stand since it goes so much against the founder's notes on the subject. 

Although it would be quite comical to see Alan's situation happen.  Another thing people forget is that State's flip flop all the time through out history.  TX use to be democratic and CA use to be very republican.  WV, which actually decided to the election for George W Bush, was a solid blue state until he got it to switch in 2000.  It just make me laugh when I see people talk (mainly liberals currently but conservatives too) about state policies as if things wont swing the other way. 

[Alan Klein]

The problem is that the state's voters end up disenfranchised, Alan. The first time a state actually does this and a lawsuit ensues, the thing's gonna zip through the court system and end up in the hands of the Supremes almost immediately, just as Algore's attempt to subvert the electoral process in Florida zipped to the Supremes. Ain't no way this is gonna hold up under the Constitution. We went through this whole argument when the Constitution was adopted.

You realize of course that a lawsuit is in the cards for 2020.  They will be filed immediately.  The winner of the presidency will not be able to be known until the Supremes vote.  Another 2000 mess.  It may turn out that the Court rules their methods are constitutional.  Who knows?  After all, the Constitution does not require electors to vote one way or the other. In fact, in 2016, a bunch of Clinton "faithless" electors voted for Trump and vice versa.  Perfectly legal. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

So who's to say how a state decides how their electors are selected in the first place?  Well, it will be worth another thread here and we'll get lot's of foreigner's opinions on what we should do.  It's going to be a lot of fun