US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Skybird]

I must teeth-grindingly admit that with the two treaties between Israel and the UAE and Bahrein he has scored big. To what degree it was him and to what degree it was senior diplomats, is something else.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I must teeth-grindingly admit that with the two treaties between Israel and the UAE and Bahrein he has scored big. To what degree it was him and to what degree it was senior diplomats, is something else.

Well, if you're going to castigate his every mistake (both real & imagined), then by rights you need to commend his accomplishments.

If you hold your nose, you can do it.

[Buddahaid]

"His"? Is Trump now a god?

I'm sure He thinks so but.....

[Grumpy Pete]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Well, if you're going to castigate His every mistake (both real & imagined), then by rights you need to commend His accomplishments.

If you hold your nose, you can do it.

True. And quite honestly, just about every administration has tried (and failed) to broker a Middle East peace plan since ~1948. What Trump has accomplished in this area in one term is quite impressive indeed. Whether it was done by senior diplomats or is something Trump had a hands on approach to doesn't matter. It is happening on his watch.


Seriously, if it was anyone else besides Trump that was putting his signature on this plan, even the Democrats would be recommending the Nobel Peace Prize...

[August]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

"His"? Is Trump now a god?

I'm sure He thinks so but.....

Oh Jeez is that a thing now? Woops I may have accidentally deified a whole bunch of people over the years.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by August

Oh Jeez is that a thing now? Woops I may have accidentally deified a whole bunch of people over the years.

I couldn't let that pass....

[Hawk66]

Originally Posted by u crank

It is funny that you should say that. In 2008 and 2012 Barack Obama won overwhelming Electoral college and popular vote victories. Was the system not fair then? Were Republican voters surpressed? Did the system change overnight some time in 2016? Of course not. The system is only unfair when Democrats lose. They are quite happy with the system when they win.

I have no doubt that if Obama was running in 2020 with the same campaign as he had in 2008 he would bury Trump. Flawed candidates can lose to a only slightly less flawed candidate with startling regularity. Democrats may find that out with Joe Biden.

I just refer to the election of 2000 and 2016. Especially the election of 2000 was so close (even in terms of the current system), that even only very minor design issues in the system (and my claim is there are major ones) might have elected the "wrong" president.

Your argument is a little weird, to be honest. So democrats (by the way I am not a fanboy of the democrats at all) need to win more votes in the current system/political landscape than Republicans (to achieve the same result) and such a system is considered to be fair. And that democrats at all can win significantly is a sign that the voting is fair enough.


But yeah just some remarks from a foreigner ...you guys have to choose your system but sometimes it helps to have a bird view on things

[Skybird]

I dont go back as far as 1948 as someone implied, but Carter. Relations established with Bahrein and UAE is the biggest acchievement since the treaties with Egypt, and Jordan,
with which Israel negotiated in battles.

Also, Carter finished the more difficult job. Egypt had existentially threatened Israel, both nations suffered hugh losses, and Israeli troops stood deep inside Egypt on the Sinai. The war actually were three wars. The acting politicians were witnesses of the founding era of Israel, bitter memories lived freshly in the minds of many people. To reach a normalization of ties under those precondtions was much more diffult than it is today, so much time later between Israel and two "dwarf" states that enver played such a big role in those wars at all, and who are with Israel united by share dinterests directed against Iran and after decades of demonstration that Israel did not pose a threat to the authoritarian regimes in the region. So, Carter really finished the much tougher job of the two, against much heavier resistances

Iran cannot like this.


So lets leave it in perspective. Trump scored two solid points there. Not less, but then, also not more.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

So democrats (by the way I am not a fanboy of the democrats at all) need to win more votes in the current system/political landscape than Republicans (to achieve the same result) and such a system is considered to be fair.

I don't understand. You will have to explain that one. Who ever gets to 270 or more wins. Why do Democrats need more?

The point I was trying to make is that winning or losing has far more to do with the candidates than the system. Obama's wins in 2008 and 2012 were impressive. In 2012 he beat a fairly good Republican candidate Romney 332 to 206. Four years later, Hillary Clinton couldn't beat a reality TV star with no political experience. Clinton was a flawed candidate with a long history of corruption and a very unlikable personality. The DNC should have known better. And did they learn anything? Apparently not.

But yeah just some remarks from a foreigner ...you guys have to choose your system but sometimes it helps to have a bird view on things

I'm a foreigner as well. Canadian born and bred. I am also an unabashed American political junkie. Such entertainment and it's free.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

"His"? Is Trump now a god?

I'm sure He thinks so but.....

No, I did it for emphasis, but since it bothers you so much I corrected it, "His" is now "his".

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by u crank

The DNC should have known better

Another four years down the drain as far as I can tell

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by MaDef

No, I did it for emphasis, but since it bothers you so much I corrected it, "His" is now "his".

You should have made it HIS in that "case" so it wouldn't be construed as deification. Anyway it didn't bother me.

[Catfish]

[Hawk66]

Originally Posted by u crank

I don't understand. You will have to explain that one. Who ever gets to 270 or more wins. Why do Democrats need more?

I was referring to the popular vote. That Clinton was not a strong candidate - to say it that way I agree of crs. But nevertheless she won by more than 3-4 million votes. If Trump had to get the (relative) majority of the votes, his chances for a reelection might be a couple of percents...
I am not a sociologist....but all things are connected...if such things happen multiple times, it could (probably it has) even have a side effect that potential democratic voters - who are not especially politically interested for various reasons - won't vote next time or some of the younger generation at all ("Our vote does not matter anyways, the system is cheating").

You could argue that Obama managed to rally especially the younger generation behind him, which is true. My point is not that the Democrats won't have more chances by nominating a better candidate, my point is that it looks like if (concerning the current distribution of the citizens/states in the US and their political alignment) you would have similar "strong" candidates, the Republican candidate has a significantly greater chance to win.
The example for this is the election 2016. Two similar weak candidates (in their ways)...

Originally Posted by u crank

I'm a foreigner as well. Canadian born and bred. I am also an unabashed American political junkie. Such entertainment and it's free.:

Oh . I cannot argue here .

[August]

I'd hate to have a system where the populations of just a few states rule over the rest. This is the United STATES of America, not the United Peoples. If socialists want to change that then the states should be given a chance to opt out of such a game changing arraignment.