The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

On-Topic Trump Bans Syrian Refugees

Stardreamer said:
Yes it is flawed but that can be said of most Human creations, perfection is not only usually beyond grasp but rarely lasts even if achieved.

We need to remember that the Presidency was never intended to be a popularity contest decided by a popular vote. If anything the biggest flaw in the current system is we have gone too far in that direction instead of not far enough. We are eliminating the vetting of candidate's merits that would prevent the election of a leadership disaster like Trump.

I don't think the general election or the EC is the main problem though but the primary system. I understand that primary elections were intended to do away with the smoke filled rooms where the party leadership just selected a candidate and coronated them at the convention but the primary election has just replaced the leadership with a popular rally of the party's more radical extremes.
Click to expand...

I agree but the old system combined primaries, serious voting by delegates , plus negotiations in the smoke filed rooms. In gereral, it was a successful system.
Our present system is so vicious that the best people do not run, leaving it to a few with narcissistic personalities, good looks and good speaking, with no record to live down.
 
So we're off to the Supremes.

The White House arguing that the ruling should have been made solely on the face of the Order and that the President's motivation as expressed in his campaign statements and his comments after Muslim Ban 1.0 and 2.0 cannot be considered.
 
...and the Tweeter in Chief just can't resist shooting directly at his foot.

President Trump early Monday made clear the intent of a blocked executive order on immigration now being appealed to the Supreme Court.

“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!”
Click to expand...

and....

The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original Travel Ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.
Click to expand...

Surely the Supreme Court won't be able to ignore the true intent of the Muslim Ban Executive Order v 2.0.

Once again, there is no proof at all that it would make the country safer.

It certainly didn't make the country safer from this guy.

portland28n-2-web.jpg
 
rareboy said:
...and the Tweeter in Chief just can't resist shooting directly at his foot.



and....



Surely the Supreme Court won't be able to ignore the true intent of the Muslim Ban Executive Order v 2.0.

Once again, there is no proof at all that it would make the country safer.

It certainly didn't make the country safer from this guy.

portland28n-2-web.jpg
Click to expand...

The true intent was to protect the US from potential terrorists; Islam is a marker for and an element of potential terrorism. The exclusion is well within the president's discretion and not remotely an establishment of religion. Neither the president nor Congress have any obligation to prove the ultimate success of their decisions. [Text: Removed]
 
gsdx said:
Read again. I didn't say it does not work. I said it does not 'really' work. There is something wrong with a system in which the person who loses the election becomes president. More people voted AGAINST Trump than FOR him. The system gave Americans what the majority didn't want.
Click to expand...

No, the person who won became president. No citizen actually votes for president. The outcome of the election was 304 to 227, with 7 "faithless" electors.
 
MakeDigitalLove said:
I understand why it exists, but I also don't agree with it because it is still flawed.
Click to expand...

The biggest flaw is that laws today bar electors from doing what they're supposed to: make sure we don't get an incompetent boob in the White House.

As I said, if it had worked the way it was intended, we'd likely have President Collins right now.
 
Stardreamer said:
Yes it is flawed but that can be said of most Human creations, perfection is not only usually beyond grasp but rarely lasts even if achieved.

We need to remember that the Presidency was never intended to be a popularity contest decided by a popular vote. If anything the biggest flaw in the current system is we have gone too far in that direction instead of not far enough. We are eliminating the vetting of candidate's merits that would prevent the election of a leadership disaster like Trump.

I don't think the general election or the EC is the main problem though but the primary system. I understand that primary elections were intended to do away with the smoke filled rooms where the party leadership just selected a candidate and coronated them at the convention but the primary election has just replaced the leadership with a popular rally of the party's more radical extremes.
Click to expand...

In short, democracy is an unreliable way to choose a competent leader.

We should add a touch of the Chinese system somehow, vetting candidates to make sure they're competent.
 
gsdx said:
Then who do they vote for?
Click to expand...

They vote to tell their states how they want the actual votes to be cast.

But the electors are supposed to be free to refuse to choose a bumbling incompetent regardless of how popular he or she may be. I really wish the worship of democracy that gave us laws requiring electors to vote as they're told had failed; if we had President Collins right now we'd be doing much better -- if only because she knows how to put a certain Speaker in his place.
 
^ Our system isn't perfect, but the person who gets the most votes by the people wins, and the party which wins the most seats in parliament becomes the government.
 
gsdx said:
^ Our system isn't perfect, but the person who gets the most votes by the people wins, and the party which wins the most seats in parliament becomes the government.
Click to expand...

Um, you don't directly elect your head honcho, either -- no Canadian casts a vote for Prime Minister. The only difference is that your parliament chooses the PM while the Electoral College chooses the President.

Granted, your Parliament gets to choose from people who have demonstrated competence, something our Electoral College doesn't get to do precisely because of the itch for worshipping democracy. If they hadn't been saddled with the requirement to go with "the will of the people", we could have avoided both our bad choices.
 
BTW, in the first-past-the-post system, isn't it possible for the majority of the people to be not represented at all, since a candidate can win with as little as a third of the vote? That would mean that in both the U.S. and Canada, a party ca be in charge without having gotten a majority of the votes.
 
Let's try to keep the thread on topic about the Muslim Ban.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top