The resistance

umdoistressilvaquatro

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Posts
1,960
Media
0
Likes
1,625
Points
173
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You have over-simplified views, IMO. Until proven adversely, Mr. Trump is the democratically elected President of USA. The fact that you don't like him doesn't make him a tyrant. In a democracy, people try to persuade other people that President is bad for the Country.

Beside that, medice cura te ipsum : USA is #21 in the democratic index rating. Brazil is at #51. The lower in the scale the less democratic.
I love when people come up with rantings from random organizations without even knowing from where those indexes come from, so that their opinion sounds more objective and fact-based.
"As described in the report, the democracy index is a weighted average based on the answers of 60 questions, each one with either two or three permitted alternative answers. Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of the Economist Intelligence Unit or independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public-opinion surveys from the respective countries." From the wikipedia article on the index.
So basically, you go around asking the american people and (probably american) non-specified specialists what are their impressions on the country, and try to treat that subjective data as an objective description of reality...
Let's get the facts objective. In Brazil, we vote directly for the executive, not for shady electors who can second-guess the popular sovereignty of thousands. The election result need no confirmation from Congress, they can't simply throw away popular sovereignty. We have direct democracy on health issues through the health councils. We have more than thirdy political parties. You can vote in the party you most identify with every time, because strategical voting is unnecessary in the two rounds + proportional system. In the last 7 elections we had 4 different parties gaining the presidential office. There are absolutely no brazilian citizen imprisioned for informing their fellow citizens of the actions of their government (like happened to Manning). The voting day is a holiday, and companies can be fined for forcing voters to work. We don't cut the voting rights of prisoners and former felons. It is unconstitutional to deny citizens basic rights (like healthcare). Companies have restrictions on campaign donations, and this is not considered a limitation on their free-speech rights (companies are not considered people). Sure, we don't have a long history of democracy (our first post-dictatorship election was in 1990), but you are grossly misinformed if you think we are worst off in terms of how democratic we are compared with USA.
 

marinera

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Posts
2,230
Media
0
Likes
1,325
Points
123
Location
Rome (Latium, Italy)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I love when people come up with rantings from random organizations without even knowing from where those indexes come from, so that their opinion sounds more objective and fact-based.
...
It is considered pretty accurate by about anyone, but if you don't like it I have another one:
'Democracy Ranking is an independent initiative, whose organization (point of contact, the ″Democracy Ranking Association″) is located primarily in Vienna, Austria.[1][2] Democracy Ranking produces an annual global ranking of democracies. The applied conceptual formula, which measures the quality of democracy, integrates freedom and other characteristics of the political system with the performance of non-political dimensions (gender, economy, knowledge, health, and environment)'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Ranking#Reflections_on_the_Democracy_Ranking

The outcome is pretty much the same
http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/2015-full-dataset-2/
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,639
Media
62
Likes
5,013
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The UK watched the US election with disbelief. Both parties managed to put forward totally unsuitable candidates.

However from a UK perspective I don't see that the idea of "resistance" to Trump is helpful, whether in the USA or internationally. Those in the USA who are desperately unhappy with the result need instead to reflect on what went wrong:
* The Democrats put forward an "establishment" figure. Broadly this is the idea that was rejected.
* the Republicans were the victims of a form of entryism and put forward a populist independent, a man who is anti-establishment and even detached from the Republican party.
The people of the USA elected Trump. On the College system he had a clear win. (Had the election been by the popular vote both candidates would have campaigned differently.)

The USA has to start by understanding that the people have voted for the iconoclast. THEN there has to be some sort of realisation that SOME of the icons he is attacking need breaking.
 

stustu

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Posts
1,116
Media
0
Likes
1,729
Points
268
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Trump is trash. And a clown.
He will likely leave the office in disgrace.
Many people who voted him in to office are already very concerned about his ties to Russia as well as
other questionable connections. After he attempts to "settle" his score with O'Bama, he will dismantle
certain civil rights, and that will likely be his downfall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ActionBuddy

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
The UK watched the US election with disbelief. Both parties managed to put forward totally unsuitable candidates.

However from a UK perspective I don't see that the idea of "resistance" to Trump is helpful, whether in the USA or internationally. Those in the USA who are desperately unhappy with the result need instead to reflect on what went wrong:
* The Democrats put forward an "establishment" figure. Broadly this is the idea that was rejected.
* the Republicans were the victims of a form of entryism and put forward a populist independent, a man who is anti-establishment and even detached from the Republican party.
The people of the USA elected Trump. On the College system he had a clear win. (Had the election been by the popular vote both candidates would have campaigned differently.)

The USA has to start by understanding that the people have voted for the iconoclast. THEN there has to be some sort of realisation that SOME of the icons he is attacking need breaking.

And Americans watched the Brexit vote with disbelief. Let's not sugarcoat EITHER. Both votes, as well as the rise of similar right winged sentiment in other parts of Europe, were/ARE the result of a rise in nationalist, separatist notions founded upon bigotries and racism.

And all that other crap about a vote for an "anti-establishment" figure mere b.s. rationalization put forth to excuse it all. How can a guy who has done nothing but USE and BENEFIT from "the establishment" be "anti-establishment"?
 

marinera

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Posts
2,230
Media
0
Likes
1,325
Points
123
Location
Rome (Latium, Italy)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Explain how.
This is pretty easy. About everywhere at everytime, voters can be divided in three equally relevant groups : left, center, right. What is 'left' or 'right' can vary from a country to another: for example for many Europeans, if not most, USA democrats would be classified as 'center' if not 'moderate right'.

Now you have two choices: give to each of those party proportional representation or adopt a majoritarian system. In both cases, the sole party who can form a coalition to make a Government is the party at the center : you can have a center+right Government, but a right+left would be extremely problematic. So you end up with the center always ruling, whatever the voters' choice.

If you have even more parties, you get a fragmented Parliament/Government; the major group, to have the decisive votes it needs in Parliament, will have to accept that a small party will have disproportionate power.

It ain't just theory: after the war, in Italy we had a proportional system; the Christian Party has been always in charge, with the help of a number of small parties. This has produced both immobilism (deadlock?) and extreme instability. The sole Government who remained in charge for the whole duration of the mandate is the second Berlusconi' one, if I remember correctly.

The two or three parties system has issue also and no system is perfect.
 

umdoistressilvaquatro

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Posts
1,960
Media
0
Likes
1,625
Points
173
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This is pretty easy. About everywhere at everytime, voters can be divided in three equally relevant groups : left, center, right. What is 'left' or 'right' can vary from a country to another: for example for many Europeans, if not most, USA democrats would be classified as 'center' if not 'moderate right'.

Now you have two choices: give to each of those party proportional representation or adopt a majoritarian system. In both cases, the sole party who can form a coalition to make a Government is the party at the center : you can have a center+right Government, but a right+left would be extremely problematic. So you end up with the center always ruling, whatever the voters' choice.

If you have even more parties, you get a fragmented Parliament/Government; the major group, to have the decisive votes it needs in Parliament, will have to accept that a small party will have disproportionate power.

It ain't just theory: after the war, in Italy we had a proportional system; the Christian Party has been always in charge, with the help of a number of small parties. This has produced both immobilism (deadlock?) and extreme instability. The sole Government who remained in charge for the whole duration of the mandate is the second Berlusconi' one, if I remember correctly.

The two or three parties system has issue also and no system is perfect.
That's not how proportional voting works at all. The whole point is to make the House seats represent more faithfully the people, it is highly unlikely that a small party have disproportional power. And Italy is simply an oddball regarding the case of several reelections of the same party.
 

umdoistressilvaquatro

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Posts
1,960
Media
0
Likes
1,625
Points
173
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Your hatred of the citizens of the United States have been made clear. Why anyone responds to you is beyond me.
Why is it wrong to hate the citizens of the United States? Around the world, the majority of people hate USA. And with plenty of reasons. Now in this election we had a confirmation that your people is incapable of getting better.
 

marinera

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Posts
2,230
Media
0
Likes
1,325
Points
123
Location
Rome (Latium, Italy)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
That's not how proportional voting works at all. The whole point is to make the House seats represent more faithfully the people, it is highly unlikely that a small party have disproportional power. And Italy is simply an oddball regarding the case of several reelections of the same party.
It is quite likely actually. That is the context that brought Hitler to the power: tens of parties, impossibility to form a stable majorance. It is what logic predicts will happen and it is what history has shown happens.
 

marinera

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Posts
2,230
Media
0
Likes
1,325
Points
123
Location
Rome (Latium, Italy)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Why is it wrong to hate the citizens of the United States? Around the world, the majority of people hate USA. And with plenty of reasons. Now in this election we had a confirmation that your people is incapable of getting better.
You are a nazist. Goodbye.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronin001

ronin001

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Cammer
Joined
May 16, 2009
Posts
10,348
Media
55
Likes
47,196
Points
618
Location
New York (United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Why is it wrong to hate the citizens of the United States? Around the world, the majority of people hate USA. And with plenty of reasons. Now in this election we had a confirmation that your people is incapable of getting better.

Excuse me for not being well informed on other countries current events; but didn't Brazil impeach President Dilma last year, in what was technically called a legal coup ? America may not be perfect, it never has been. The average American will be the first to admit that.
Our Elective system is flawed, we admit that. Trump is an Ass, I personally will admit to that. But no matter what America will survive and hopefully emerge better from the process.

There is an old saying about people who live in glass houses, how they should never throw stones. The Brazilian headlines from the past year reference multiple riots, protests, corruption scandals and indifference to poverty. So no place is perfect.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,173
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Why is it wrong to hate the citizens of the United States? Around the world, the majority of people hate USA. And with plenty of reasons. Now in this election we had a confirmation that your people is incapable of getting better.
Why is it wrong to hate the citizens of the United States? Around the world, the majority of people hate USA. And with plenty of reasons. Now in this election we had a confirmation that your people is incapable of getting better.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-corruption-analysis-idUSKBN1542JN
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/americas/brazil-president-temer-corruption.html?_r=0
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35810578
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/world/americas/brazil-corruption.html
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...zil-political-crisis-conservatives-corruption
http://www.business-anti-corruption.com/country-profiles/brazil
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronin001
S

superbot

Guest
The UK watched the US election with disbelief. Both parties managed to put forward totally unsuitable candidates.

However from a UK perspective I don't see that the idea of "resistance" to Trump is helpful, whether in the USA or internationally. Those in the USA who are desperately unhappy with the result need instead to reflect on what went wrong:
* The Democrats put forward an "establishment" figure. Broadly this is the idea that was rejected.
* the Republicans were the victims of a form of entryism and put forward a populist independent, a man who is anti-establishment and even detached from the Republican party.
The people of the USA elected Trump. On the College system he had a clear win. (Had the election been by the popular vote both candidates would have campaigned differently.)

The USA has to start by understanding that the people have voted for the iconoclast. THEN there has to be some sort of realisation that SOME of the icons he is attacking need breaking.
I agree,the U.S has to go back to basics and stop the likes of Trump,H.Clinton and Palin rising to the top in the first place.There must be a great many capable people in that country,but because they cannot generate obscene amounts of money and influence,they never get to be heard let alone elected.
One cannot start on a campaign of resistance,when the ultimate form of resistance must always be the ballot box.
Rather like the U.S's ridiculous gun laws,the work need to be done from the ground up.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,173
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The UK watched the US election with disbelief. Both parties managed to put forward totally unsuitable candidates.

However from a UK perspective I don't see that the idea of "resistance" to Trump is helpful, whether in the USA or internationally. Those in the USA who are desperately unhappy with the result need instead to reflect on what went wrong:
* The Democrats put forward an "establishment" figure. Broadly this is the idea that was rejected.
* the Republicans were the victims of a form of entryism and put forward a populist independent, a man who is anti-establishment and even detached from the Republican party.
The people of the USA elected Trump. On the College system he had a clear win. (Had the election been by the popular vote both candidates would have campaigned differently.)

The USA has to start by understanding that the people have voted for the iconoclast. THEN there has to be some sort of realisation that SOME of the icons he is attacking need breaking.
The resistance is of the implementation of Trump's agenda and it is beginning to work. It is based on these guidelines: https://www.indivisibleguide.com/

For example, Senator Tom Cotton, an extremely conservative senator, held a healthcare townhall. Prior to it he was against the Affordable Care Act:

Now he is leading the Republican Senators against the republican plan for healthcare.

Our consitution only has one way to remove a President and that is impeachment by the house of representatives, currently controlled by republicans.

Mid term elections are in 2018. Due to Trump, I believe the Democrats will re-take the House in 2018. Then all bets are off. Mr Trump's agenda is stopped dead in its tracks and impeachment becomes a real possibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterB
D

deleted15807

Guest
The resistance is of the implementation of Trump's agenda and it is beginning to work. It is based on these guidelines: https://www.indivisibleguide.com/

For example, Senator Tom Cotton, an extremely conservative senator, held a healthcare townhall. Prior to it he was against the Affordable Care Act:

Now he is leading the Republican Senators against the republican plan for healthcare.

Our consitution only has one way to remove a President and that is impeachment by the house of representatives, currently controlled by republicans.

Mid term elections are in 2018. Due to Trump, I believe the Democrats will re-take the House in 2018. Then all bets are off. Mr Trump's agenda is stopped dead in its tracks and impeachment becomes a real possibility.


Good news: In two years, we’ll have a new president. Bad news: If we make it that long.

My “good” prediction is based on the Law of the Pendulum. Enough Americans, including most independent voters, will be so ready to shed Donald Trump and his little shop of horrors that the 2018 midterm elections are all but certain to be a landslide — no, make that a mudslide — sweep of the House and Senate. If Republicans took both houses in a groundswell of the people’s rejection of Obamacare, Democrats will take them back in a tsunami of protest.


Trump’s two-year presidency
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,173
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I love when people come up with rantings from random organizations without even knowing from where those indexes come from, so that their opinion sounds more objective and fact-based.
"As described in the report, the democracy index is a weighted average based on the answers of 60 questions, each one with either two or three permitted alternative answers. Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of the Economist Intelligence Unit or independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public-opinion surveys from the respective countries." From the wikipedia article on the index.
So basically, you go around asking the american people and (probably american) non-specified specialists what are their impressions on the country, and try to treat that subjective data as an objective description of reality...
Let's get the facts objective. In Brazil, we vote directly for the executive, not for shady electors who can second-guess the popular sovereignty of thousands. The election result need no confirmation from Congress, they can't simply throw away popular sovereignty. We have direct democracy on health issues through the health councils. We have more than thirdy political parties. You can vote in the party you most identify with every time, because strategical voting is unnecessary in the two rounds + proportional system. In the last 7 elections we had 4 different parties gaining the presidential office. There are absolutely no brazilian citizen imprisioned for informing their fellow citizens of the actions of their government (like happened to Manning). The voting day is a holiday, and companies can be fined for forcing voters to work. We don't cut the voting rights of prisoners and former felons. It is unconstitutional to deny citizens basic rights (like healthcare). Companies have restrictions on campaign donations, and this is not considered a limitation on their free-speech rights (companies are not considered people). Sure, we don't have a long history of democracy (our first post-dictatorship election was in 1990), but you are grossly misinformed if you think we are worst off in terms of how democratic we are compared with USA.
I hope you keep Brazilian Political Corruption within the confines of your countries borders.
It’s not easy for outsiders to sort through all the competing claims about Brazil’s political crisis and the ongoing effort to oust its president, Dilma Rousseff, who won re-election a mere 18 months ago with 54 million votes. But the most important means for understanding the truly anti-democratic nature of what’s taking place is to look at the person whom Brazilian oligarchs and their media organs are trying to install as president: the corruption-tainted, deeply unpopular, oligarch-serving Vice President Michel Temer (above). Doing so shines a bright light on what’s really going on, and why the world should be deeply disturbed.

The New York Times’s Brazil bureau chief, Simon Romero, interviewed Temer this week, and this is how his excellent article begins:

RIO DE JANEIRO — One recent poll found that only 2 percent of Brazilians would vote for him. He is under scrutiny over testimony linking him to a colossal graft scandal. And a high court justice ruled that Congress should consider impeachment proceedings against him.

Michel Temer, Brazil’s vice president, is preparing to take the helm of Brazil next month if the Senate decides to put President Dilma Rousseff on trial.

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22...ng-installed-as-president-and-finance-chiefs/
 

marinera

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Posts
2,230
Media
0
Likes
1,325
Points
123
Location
Rome (Latium, Italy)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
My understanding is that there aren't the conditions for a succesful impeachment of Trump. If I have not missed something.

If a President has so high friction with the other Public Powers (judicary system, parliament etc.) that it goes into doing pretty much nothing, is there any remedy in the Law?

Trump may resign. He is not the tough guy his nuts fantasies about.