OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Help!I'maRock! said:
Oh, it's better than that. Bannon was added and the Joint Chiefs were dropped.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38787241
Click to expand...

Director of National Intel and chariman of the Joint Chiefs out. Bannon in.
Flynn is already out there with his staunch anti-Muslim stance & he believes the US/Mex border is already in use by terrorists to infiltrate our country. Pairing him w/ Bannon sounds like a great way to make sure you only get exactly what you want to hear from the NSC.
 
oOdCk9Wh.jpg
 
Chad said:
They capped the number of the House in 1929. The number of electors is the sum of your house members and senators, so if they keep that in place, it means California would end up with over 1200 people in the house which would be insane. So they could ditch the EC or change the rule that the number of electors is the sum of the house and senate. I can't imagine increasing the house to the accurate number of representatives. Imagine paying the additional members all that cash to do nothing :grin:
Click to expand...
That's stupid. What they should have done is change the number of citizens a representative represents, keeping it proportional.
 
Lerxst said:
Director of National Intel and chariman of the Joint Chiefs out. Bannon in.
Flynn is already out there with his staunch anti-Muslim stance & he believes the US/Mex border is already in use by terrorists to infiltrate our country. Pairing him w/ Bannon sounds like a great way to make sure you only get exactly what you want to hear from the NSC.
Click to expand...

This is .... this thing is Not Good. I mean really, really Not Good.
 
Last edited:
Trump really doesn’t know how, or want, to work within the typical institutional structures of democracy. Like an authoritarian leader, he wants to transcend that and connect directly to the people. He does that through Twitter, by going around the press, or by making it sound as though the world is an extraordinarily dangerous place and positioning himself as a sort of authoritarian leader, savior and strong man who will deliver the country from “carnage,” to use a word he used in his inaugural address.

...when I think of an authoritarian I often think of someone who is a true believer in something. They take office and they have an agenda that they really believe in and Trump doesn’t seem to have much ideological conviction, so I thought, how can he be an authoritarian? But actually Trump does have principles. He believes in power and strength, and he believes in himself. So that becomes his philosophy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-president/514802/

Saw this article and figured those who were previously pondering DJT's mental status would like to see what the chair of Northwestern's Dept of Psychology muses on the topic.
 
And as misguided as they may be a lot of people respect and look up to those values and characteristics.
 
Lerxst said:
Trump really doesn’t know how, or want, to work within the typical institutional structures of democracy. Like an authoritarian leader, he wants to transcend that and connect directly to the people. He does that through Twitter, by going around the press, or by making it sound as though the world is an extraordinarily dangerous place and positioning himself as a sort of authoritarian leader, savior and strong man who will deliver the country from “carnage,” to use a word he used in his inaugural address.

...when I think of an authoritarian I often think of someone who is a true believer in something. They take office and they have an agenda that they really believe in and Trump doesn’t seem to have much ideological conviction, so I thought, how can he be an authoritarian? But actually Trump does have principles. He believes in power and strength, and he believes in himself. So that becomes his philosophy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-president/514802/

Saw this article and figured those who were previously pondering DJT's mental status would like to see what the chair of Northwestern's Dept of Psychology muses on the topic.
Click to expand...

I read this article earlier today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...op-chavez-dont-make-the-same-mistakes-we-did/

Interesting perspective.

It reinforced two thoughts that I've had for a while:
It probably doesn't matter which political party he's affiliated himself with, he just figured out which would best serve his purposes.
If you directly oppose him, at the game he is playing, you help him further his agenda. To win, the game needs to be changed. That doesn't mean to just let him do what he's doing. Just find a better way to stop him/them. Read the article and you'll see what I mean.

There's also a link to the original article that was more an analysis of the Venezuelan situation than as a warning to America, but the content is pretty much the same. I like that the original article existed first. It makes the WaPo article more of a "look at how this happened over there already. This is how it applies to what might be happening here now. Maybe not. Just proceed with caution."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top