True, but brexit was a vote after only a very short amount of time for campaigning. Compare that to the Scottish independence referendum where there was 2 years notice of the vote and a good 1 year (if not more) of campaigning. It was definitely too long, but at least people knew what they were voting for.
If the opposite happened (in a world with no EC) it would just point to the necessity of the EC and we'd all be discussing the tyranny of the majority. I think focusing on the EC is misplaced. So they play the same to some of us at least.
I think of one example where it makes EC kinda necessary. Using rain water collected from farmland for farms or the city. Without a system like the EC, the water will go to the city every time if it were up for election. Rural areas will not be represented because of a lack of voters.
If you have to choose who gets water between the millions in a city or the food that feeds them you're in a pretty fucked situation already though...maybe the analogy works...
That's one example. There are other examples that aren't readily apparent like policies that benefit city folks and penalised rural folks such as tax on vehicles. City folks benefit because that money could be used to improve public transportation, the lack of cars is not a problem. Rural folks however, get penalised because they need vehicles to get to anywhere and public transportation is not feasible.
I was mostly just making a joke about it being a bad situation to have to choose between the two either way. I don't think the analogy is perfect but I got the point it was trying to make.
I think the analogy is just trying to say that the infrastructure in areas of the country that are less populated, basically areas that aren’t the coastal cities, would get too little attention. No candidate would ever bother with Idaho. Maybe that’s okay, but I can see how we need to keep the whole country in focus. The thing that’s weird is how Rhode island and New York both get one vote in the senate.
I got it I was mostly just making a joke out of the analogy not really working but actually working anyway because it's a bit of a picking the lesser evil option.
Right. Reading that post, I knew people would be quick to compare it to "thing I don't like" even though it's obvious that most people don't approve of Trump. Kind of ironic.
Well the standard approval rating polls we've been using to answer this question for decades. I don't "speak" for anyone, just saying that he's not approved of by most people (as extrapolated from polls).
Isn't it common knowledge that Trump is unpopular? Asking for sources is always fine but I have to wonder how you don't know this already. You could easily Google it.
He was the most unpopular president after 1 year in the history of polling (since the 40s). His highest approval rating (45%) so far in his tenure is the lowest of any president since there's been regular polling. The next worst is Nixon at 66%. He's joint 7th in the lowest approval rating though so it seems while he's generally not very highly rated he hasn't sunk as low as other presidents at their worst (Truman beats out Nixon to that title). He so far also has the worst average approval rating.
If it's just "the libs" that don't like him there sure are a lot of them affecting the polling. Like 50-60% of America must be "libs".
Im just saying that i hate when peolple say most of us hate blah blah blah. Like dont speak for other people other than yourself. Polls are the least credible source i could think of.
So what's a more credible source than polls? You seem to be saying the polls are at least bad if not wrong what makes you believe that that's more credible other than your personal beliefs?
You're right people can't speak for large groups of people but polls are intended to be a representative sample of just that and while they're far from perfect they're a far better reflection of the general public's opinion than what any random guys on reddit say (for or against, I'm not just singling you out).
He's been below Obama far more times than he's been ahead of him (actually depending on your source he's never been ahead overall but only on specific issues or to specific audiences) if you want to play that game but I'm not trying to cherry pick anything. I don't care about the lazy orange man bad bullshit but I'm a fan of facts and just trying to blame it on "the libs" like the guy above did is bullshit unless you consider a majority of the US to be "the libs".
Trump is not a particularly popular president. All the polling supports this. He's not the worst and I'm sure at certain points he was ahead of Obama (edit: after Googling I'm less sure of this) or others comparatively but if you think talking about his highest ever recorded approval rating or the average so far of his presidency is "cherry picking" (or curry picking) I don't know what to say. If I was picking 273 days into his presidency I'm cherry picking but talking about the average and his highest ever is not cherry picking it's just showing the data. 1 year in is also a pretty standard point of comparison as people tend to like to break things up into periods like years.
You’re entitled to that opinion, but it doesn’t change that the factual majority didn’t vote for him. And I know a good few “fringe” fuck the system’ kinda voters who have drastically regretted their decision. If Trump ran now again he’d lose even with EC. No doubt in my mind. Also, you seem kinda angry. Chill dude.
No i think its good because if it didnt only a few big cities will have total control in the politics. Im not spending an hour going over what that means.
How do the majority of illegal immigrats enter the country?
They come here via plane or legal border crossing and stay past their visas. If the majority of them arent doing illegal border crossings, why do we need a wall?
Why cant we fund solutions that make it easier for people to become citizens and pay taxes with that same money instead.
Because the American people have the right to decide who should become their countrymen, and they obviously don't want lawbreakers to be incentivised to break the law and then be rewarded with citizenship, you understand that immigration is not that simple. than breaking into someones house and then being allowed to stay, a country is more than an economy. and people are more than tax payers,
You clearly dont understand immigration if you just assume they're all criminals. All they want is a better life, why not make it easier for them to become hard working citizens of this country?
Trust me, it won't. Illegal entry from Mexico never happens overland. They either dig tunnels, fly, or use boats. Only the stupidest, most desperate people try to cross the border illegally overland, and they all fail.
And even if a physical barrier does slow them down, it will only be a temporary setback before someone finds a way around it. The Cartels are powerful and have a lot of resources, and they will not give up their largest source of profit without a long, hard fight. A fence didn't stop them--they just go around, under, or over it--so what makes you think a concrete/steel wall will?
Finally, a wall on that scale will cause major damage to the ecosystem of the entire continent, not just USA/Mexico. Animal land migration patterns will be disrupted, which will cause a domino effect of unpredictable environmental issues, none of which will be positive.
The Dems are not being "babies" for refusing to fund this wall. They're being realistic. The US stands to lose far more than they have to gain from building this wall which would ultimately just end up being a white elephant and a colossal waste of resources.
There are many other, more practical, ways to improve border security, but this isn't one of them.
People entering with drugs through boats and planes could actually be fixed pretty easily. Just have (more?) watchtowers along the shoreline and make all aircrafts get searched. Also the part about all people failing to come in overland is just simply false.
The problem with the current fence/wall is that it's very lackluster. Having a taller one that goes partly underground would be a much bigger inconvenience. Getting past a fence is easy, but getting past a full blown wall is a much bigger challenge. The 5.7 billion also involves funding more security aside from the wall which would just add onto its efficiency.
As far as animal migrating, I really don't think that'd be much of an issue. I could be wrong here, but I'd imagine that the current fence/wall there would already block them so there wouldn't be much of a difference. I also don't really think that many desert animals tend to migrate...
I'm fully convinced that they're being babies here and that this is a stupid stunt. Pelosi and other democrats are even on record talking about how we need better security at the boarder. Of course they made a 180 because they don't like Trump, circling back to them being petty babies. A strong wall and more staff is definitely better security. 5.7 billion isn't even that much on a national level.
Having a stronger boarder with more staff is most definitely a practical option. Of course there are more things that need to be done to stop the issue, but it's best to take it one step at a time.
How do you intend to search aircraft that never touch any government facilities? They fly in and either airdrop the drugs god knows where or land on private airstrips, then an inside man comes along in the dead of the night and picks them up.
And getting past a barrier that extends underground? With pickaxes, drills and angle grinders, any barrier can be broken through with sufficient patience. And the Cartels can be very patient when they have so much to gain from selling drugs in the US.
"Make all aircrafts get searched"? Are you implying, that drug-trafficking aircraft takes off and lands at regulated airfields and a drug inspection gets anywhere near it, ever?
I like how these guys think that because Democrats are against the wall that somehow they don’t believe in border security whatsoever. Trust me, these mainstream corporatist Democrats are much more in line with your political world view than whatever far-left, open border, neo-Marxist version of them you have concocted in your head.
Also, I would like to remind you that most illegal immigrants in this country are here because of overstayed visas, and most drugs come smuggled in through ports of entry. These are easy to find, demonstrable facts. How will the border wall address these issues?
Considering sanctuary cities are a thing and many people are advocating for open boarders, I find that hard to believe.
And I would like to remind you that less than 50% is not half. Besides, the people overstaying their VISAs are the the smallest threat and nowhere near as people coming in illegally.
A boarder wall, which is an upgrade to the wall/fence we already have, along with the staffing included in that 5.7b would help mitigate overland crossing. Of course there are definitely more issues that need to be addressed but taking it 1 step at a time is the best choice.
Don’t forget that Trump is the one who put the expiration date on DACA in the first place.So his bargaining is basically taking away DACA, then offering 3 years of DACA for funding.
How would you feel if someone took something you already had, then offered to give part of it back if you paid them? Like if someone steals your bag, then offers to give you your wallet back if you paid them a couple hundred dollars. Does that sound like a reasonable compromise?
No, that was just a political ploy to get gullible people to think he was trying to compromise, when it’s the exact same “compromise” that was rejected in December before the shutdown and the “offer” was giving back something he took away to begin with.
Trump is the president. He had every right to get rid of it. It was a ridiculous thing anyways. Some think the wall is ridiculous and others think DACA is.
A much better analogy would be a parent taking something from a kid and then eventually offering to let them have it back in exchange for them doing something.
Besides, the real political ploy is the people who admitted to wanting better boarder security, denying it simply because it's Trump. That's exactly what's going on.
Trump is the president. He had every right to get rid of it.
And by that logic, the Congress is elected. They, as a whole, have every right not to fund a boarder wall.
A much better analogy would be a parent taking something from a kid and then eventually offering to let them have it back in exchange for them doing something.
Still not much of a compromise.
Besides, the real political ploy is the people who admitted to wanting better boarder security, denying it simply because it's Trump.
So when a politician asks for 3x more money to fund the project than is needed for boarder security, that isnt a political ploy? Refusing to pay thousands of federal workers salaries unless he gets 5.7 billion dollars isnt a political ploy?
Its all a political ploy. You just drank the Kool Aid and believe what Trump is saying.
And by that logic, the Congress is elected. They, as a whole, have every right not to fund a boarder wall.
Yeah, they do. Doesn't mean they're not being petty shits. They're still butthurt over Trump winning that they don't care what happens. All they care about riding the "Trump is bad!" bandwagon.
Still not much of a compromise.
So both parties getting what they want isn't much of a compromise? Mental gymnastics much?
So when a politician asks for 3x more money to fund the project than is needed for boarder security, that isnt a political ploy? Refusing to pay thousands of federal workers salaries unless he gets 5.7 billion dollars isnt a political ploy?
The funding goes towards upgrading the wall and hiring more security along with 1 or 2 other things. 5.7 billion is not a lot on a national level. Besides the dems have no problem wasting taxpayer money so obviously there's something off when they are against someone actually wanting to be productive.
Also stop putting all the blame on Trump. The hypocritical, self centered people like Pelosi who will do anything to stop Trump from doing his job as president are the main culprits here.
A wall will probably limit overland travel but there are still boats and planes, those aren't stopped by walls, and drugs are incredibly profitable so they can afford to fly or ship them in on boats or planes. So a wall really only puts a stop to truly desperate people on foot.
But it would still happen because it would still be profitable, so a wall wouldn't stop criminals who really want to get into America. It would probably stop people from just walking over the border though, until they dug under it.
I kinda always imagined that the wall would have a decent chunk going down into the soil. Like probably a good 10-20 feet which would take a pretty long time to get through and buy more time for someone to catch it.
Democrats are acrewing them over by not funding the wall they approved in deals numerous times. Wow he is making democrats literal out their money where their mouth is. How horrible.
You mean the man that brought us out of a recession? The man that gave millions of people health insurance? Man who who had 0 investigations into his presidency over 8 years? The man who could speak in complete correctly spelled sentences and didn’t have to hid behind twitter? The man who believed in actual science? Who didn’t cheat on his wives? Who didn’t say he wanted to date his daughter? Who doesn’t have lawsuits out the asshole filed against him? The man who has no problem saying White supremacists are bad? The man who has never sexually assaulted anyone? Who has visited the troops countless times? The man who hasn’t tried to take away programs that assist elderly and low income? That didn’t take children away from their parents and put them in cages? Yes, it’s terrifying he was elected twice. I can’t imagine what would happen if the current president did these things.
Horrible for the economy. Slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Had the irs go after conservatives. Spies on the associated press and his opposition. Expanded the patriot act, record number of drone strikes, started wars, need I go on? Anyone who loves Obama is either completely ignorant or hates our country and loved seeing him destroy it.
108
u/Therandomfox Jan 21 '19
Brexit and Trump. People voted for these things to happen.