I ain't going to get into equality and race. As far as I am concerned Trump is nearly a complete unknown entity.

We'll find out what he really thinks when an unarmed black man is shot for having a broken tail light or something. Or if he was being serious about that Mexican wall and deporting all illegal immigrants (Like his wife was). OR banning Muslims from entering the country. Or when he turns on the Gays and Trans(If he loves Russia that much.) after pressure from the hard-line GOP. Or overturning abortion laws.

Three mistakes there. One Hillary won more votes. Two is maybe a little contentious but most of the jobs probably went over the Pacific. To China and other Asian states. Or Mexico or Canada. EU doesn't have a lot of US owned manufacturing. Three. Ultra Leftists Agenda... Trump is the one shouting PROTECTIONISM from the rooftops.

I would like to make a few points that I would personally be interested in hearing other views about though.

1: He has not really been elected on a Republican ticket.
Claiming he was anti-elite, anti-establishment made him into the change candidate. Except most of his policies (That we know) are G W Bush economic policies on steroids. If he does what he says he will. It'll actually make the poorest even poorer (Especially if his cancelling of Obama care goes wrong.) and the wealthy even more so. All while cutting taxes, infrastructural spending and raising the defense budget. Meaning that USA debt is going to increase. If he can't make the pay packet of the de-industrialised US increase and the 'jobs' come 'home'. What will they think of him ? Who will they blame.

2: He is not what the GOP want.
When Trump realises that he needs to succeed for the working average Joe American. He will soon see that the general taxation is paid by the poor and that the wealthier US citizens like him get away quite lightly. If he tries to enact changes that are seen to be more left, will the GOP stand by him ? There is a real possibility of a face off between GOP and Trump himself (Look at Obama bailing out Ohio auto-industry.). In fact this is more than just internal policy. But sticking with internal policy. How is it going to look when the GOP blame Trump and Trump blames them... PROTECTIONISM is the preserve of the left. Still think that the worst thing Trump could do with the highest probability, is start a trade war. Would the GOP let him ? Basically who has who on the lead ?

3: International Policies.
He can't stop Iran deal without upsetting the Russians. This is the simplest example of many. If he tries divide and conquer tactics with ROW on international stage then it is not just going to end in US isolation but also US appeasement(Sounds good but more later...) Another example is UK - EU relations. He can't try and sell good deals to one but not the other without any antipathy and some kind of retaliation. UK can't expect Canada(Same Queen, never had a revolution) to be friendly if Trump rips up NAFTA to only offer something similar to the British. Back to appeasement. It's all very well in a Utopian world but if ROW think USA doesn't have the stomach for it anymore then it leaves a power vacuum that will be filled by somebody.

Okay so it's early days yet. Lots of hypotheticals. But I'd be interested to hear counter arguments or suggestions to what I have said.

 

Fact:
The US in not a Democracy, it is a Democratic Republic and popular votes do not count for the Presidential election, only the electoral college votes count. If nobody showed up to vote, a president would still be elected. So while we all appreciate your post, at least do us all a favor and actually know what you are talking about before you type.

 

Now that's amazing as well. Although saying that you'd respect my experiences, you do not. You have no clue what I can or can't, you simply wish that I can't. That's diappointing, since you don't even know my skin color, but of course I accept it.
It's the first time I heard that black and white people are biological different. Science will tell you that there is no construct of "Ethnicity" in genetics, only "Geography". You dna is the same as mine, apart from a handful alleles that reacted ages ago on the different geolocation of our forefathers. In fact my dna differs from yours not more than mine does from a Spanish or a Koori. Ethnicity is a redundant sociological construct. Please refrain from claiming otherwise.
Lastly, your ego is a bit too high. My post wasn't about you, and not at all about a white guy getting touchy. I did what I do in every forum. I tried to calm the waves between you both. You know, I don't see colors on a forum, I wonder why you do? Now if you'd have replied yesterday, it would make sense that you misunderstood. But today, after quite some hours to calm down? Sorry, that doesn't make sense, other than consciously provoking.

I won't bother you anymore and hope my English wasn't too bad. You like it simple though.

 

damn @Von_Steyr is English your first language? You distilled the whole story into a line, like a fine single malt Scotch whiskey..

 

First and foremost, there was no need for you to assume you had any authority or mandate to "calm the waters" as you presumed. (Such self-inflating arrogance). And, you're right, I don't know you. But, you don't know me either. So, let's keep it that way. Simple enough for you?

 

Last edited: Nov 10, 2016

Not at all. Make it simpler. I already said we should keep it that way, so why are you repeating what I said? Still trying to provoke? I might be too complicated for your simple thoughts.

 

Fuck off, kid!

 

I knew you'd reveal it. Thank you very much. This is the first time in this thread that you are honest about yourself. I appreciate it!

 

Apparently, you don't hear so well... I asked you nicely to fuck off kid! Your arrogance is making you a tad 'deef'.

 

How long shall we play this game? I don't have to work tomorrow, so...

 

Okay, Mr. Tulamide, you win. Since you're the kind of dude that can't seem to rest until he's had the very last word. BTW, you're my first real 'contentious' contact at this site since I joined (I generally get along with most people here). So, give yourself a congratulatory hug, pal. I won't ask you to "fuck off" again since that doesn't work. Have your last word, and then we can move on. How's that?

 

Way better Mr Nycgriff. I always acknowledge people that can take as much as they give, you just learned that.

 

Yep!

 

Haha, nice, you want to play. Here we go.

Aw, a pissed off is logging off. Now I'm sad. I so wanted to play that game...

 

Last edited: Nov 10, 2016

Quote:
I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

And indeed the American form of government has been called a “democracy” by leading American statesmen and legal commentators from the Framing on. It’s true that some Framing-era commentators made arguments that distinguished “democracy” and “republic”; see, for instance, The Federalist (No. 10), though even that first draws the distinction between “pure democracy” and a “republic,” only later just saying “democracy.” But even in that era, “representative democracy” was understood as a form of democracy, alongside “pure democracy”: John Adams used the term “representative democracy” in 1794; so did Noah Webster in 1785; so did St. George Tucker in his 1803 edition of Blackstone; so did Thomas Jefferson in 1815. Tucker’s Blackstone likewise uses “democracy” to describe a representative democracy, even when the qualifier “representative” is omitted.

Likewise, James Wilson, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and one of the first Supreme Court Justices, defended the Constitution in 1787 by speaking of the three forms of government being the “monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical,” and said that in a democracy the sovereign power is “inherent in the people, and is either exercised by themselves or by their representatives.” And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level.

Now one can certainly argue that some aspects of U.S. government should become less direct, and filtered through more layers of representation. One can argue, for instance, that the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and that U.S. senators should no longer be elected directly by the people, but should return to being elected by state legislators who are elected by the people. Or one can argue for repealing state- and local-level initiative and referendum schemes. Or one can argue for making the Electoral College into a deliberative body, in which the electors are supposed to discuss the candidates and make various political deals, rather than being elected solely to vote for particular candidates. And of course one can equally argue for making some aspects of U.S. government more direct, for instance by shifting to truly direct election of the president, or by institute a federal-level initiative and referendum.

But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow “not a democracy, but a republic.” “Democracy” and “republic” aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as “a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people”). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era, “democracy” has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy.

Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

 

I understand what you are saying.
But what about illusionary democracy?
A facet of the representative kind?

Or maybe not.

 

Yes, the words falling from the mouth of this rich, intoxicated product of perhaps the most heavily commodified genre of music, represents all black people and is a great co-sign to any denialist agenda.

 

Calling black people apes? You don't sound like a racist bigot at all...nope.

 

@Calibre epithets such as "ape" are not helpful.. he is a young guy reacting to a violent scene reminiscent of the jungle..
give him one more chance ( @Backtired)

as for lil Wayne.. that guy has spent more than enough time in the hood I would imagine..he just doesn't see the need to hang on to a very largely false narrative, that is destructive to real progress