Thing is, Russia's use of the base was not at all endangered at the moment he decided to stir up "trouble" in Crimea.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Thing is, Russia's use of the base was not at all endangered at the moment he decided to stir up "trouble" in Crimea.
Russia considered itself a world power -- it is, I guess. They're somewhat paranoid, and I don't think it's far fetched to say that NATO expansion into the Baltic countries, and other parts of Eastern Europe, gave them reason for concern. Ukraine had just made a bid for NATO membership prior to the troubles. It was probably with dual reasoning that Putin took the action he did (internal control, external security).
When will the elections results be out? As in, in approximately how many hours?
Soon.
Crimea wasn't about the naval base. The base in question already had its lease extended until 2042, so Russia had complete access to the Black Sea and beyond secured for the next quarter century. It was entirely about internal politics of Putin changing the subject from corruption to foreign neo-imperialism, which is all a part of extending Russian influence to a quasi-Soviet style construct stretching from central Asia to the balkans.
Surely this is land purchased or leased from the Iraqi government? This is not what annexation means. And it is not a military base, although it is heavily fortified for obvious reasons.
If we're talking about rigged political systems, the US system is heavily rigged in favour of Republicans. It's way more than just the voter suppression techniques used in some Republican controlled areas, it's the fact that Wyoming (and many other small Republican states in terms of population) have the same the number of Senators (two) as California, despite the latter having a population seventy one times as big as the former.
This means that the Republicans will almost always control the senate, which either means gridlock in federal government (given the current unreasoning hostility of Republican to all things Democrat) or else - and god forbid Trump should win - an easy time for any Republican president.
Some may think this a wild statement, but I honestly think that a Trump presidency, combined with a Republican Senate and House, would have a good chance of spelling the end for US democracy in any meaningful sense. Laws would be enacted to bring the press and media closer to Trump's heel, the Supreme Court would be gradually filled with 'Yes Men' holding extreme views not previously witnessed within that body, voter suppression techniques would be aided and abetted by the federal government, voting boundaries would be rigged in favour of Republicans, government officials would be purged of all non-Trumperites ... and so on.
This means that the Republicans will almost always control the senate, which either means gridlock in federal government (given the current unreasoning hostility of Republican to all things Democrat) or else - and god forbid Trump should win - an easy time for any Republican president.
Some may think this a wild statement, but I honestly think that a Trump presidency, combined with a Republican Senate and House, would have a good chance of spelling the end for US democracy in any meaningful sense. Laws would be enacted to bring the press and media closer to Trump's heel, the Supreme Court would be gradually filled with 'Yes Men' holding extreme views not previously witnessed within that body, voter suppression techniques would be aided and abetted by the federal government, voting boundaries would be rigged in favour of Republicans, government officials would be purged of all non-Trumperites ... and so on.
At first I thought he meant Russia's troll farms, but no, Macedonia's in on the action too it seems.wut?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/trump-supporters-duped-by-fake-news-generated-macedonia-1590319
It was obtained via the spoils of war. I'd consider that annexation as it wouldn't have been possible otherwise. But that interpretation may very well be controversial. Other examples are Panama, Granada and the Dominican Republic.
I don't disagree with the internal part you mention, but I still view it as Russia also (genuinely) being extremely paranoid about NATO. Whether founded or unfounded, the Russians genuinely view NATO as a threat.
So the executive branch and one of the chambers of the legislative branch are elected proportionately, and the other chamber - disproportionately. I think it makes sense, considering that it is a union of states after all.
Yeah, after invading a country, disbanding the government, ripping apart the entire military structure, have thousands of troops occupy every major city forcing to oversee a new 'national building' project, all while having the new government lease you an embassy the size of the Vatican. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
Problem is, the one elected proportionately isn't representative either. Dems won by 4.7 millions votes down ballot in 2012, only gained what, 7 House seat?
04:00 GMT, 9th November, with California and being the decider. More than a day, then.
Thanks!
Put a bet on the Dems to get between 300-329 electoral college votes. 330+ and I'll be too happy to care, 270-299 I'll be too relieved to care, and -270, well I've still got my bottle caps.
Reading the last few pages, opposition to Hillary Clinton seems to be opposition against interventionist stances and opting for an Isolationist position. Curious about Obama's track record in that aspect. Seems to be getting a lot of praise for basically doing similar stuff to what may happen under Clinton.
Let me be extremely clear, I am not defending that war in any way. What I am saying is, it is not an annexation. US is not claiming that the territory its embassy resides on is from now on, an enclave of the United States. Something which Russia did with Crimea.
Are we really comparing Iraq and Crimea? I mean, seriously now?
How do you propose the system to be changed?
Disproportionate is hardly the word - more like wildly ridiculous, especially given that the Senate has so much power.
You could still have a system then gives greater proportionate weighting to smaller states (population-wise) without giving Wyoming equal weight to California.
Me too. In general, I only follow one or two threads a week on the caf now because it was too much. I'll use the opportunity of the end of this to take a total break
I'm going to miss you all
I don't think there would be a union if all the states had not been proposed equal terms on at least one ground. And since a change into the constitution requires ratification by every state, I don't think there will ever be such a change.
She's perceived as a lot more interventionist than BO, probably because of Iraq vote and believed to have had pro Syrian intervention stance.
I actually think its one of the hardest aspects of a presidency to predict, in part because future events often fall outside the realm of prior planning/thought, and POTUSs might regard a certain situation/action as not a deviation from their proposed strategy. I.e. candidate GWB criticized the continued commitment of US forces to peace-keeping globally and how it stretched the military while yielding strategically insignificant results. Yet POTUS GWB didn't hesitate to commit to Afghanistan and Iraq, obviously because of 9/11, but he did not at the time believe it would entail commitments much larger and longer than those in the Balkans he was criticizing as a candidate.
What about the other examples, though?
Slightly back on topic, I'm glad that the mini bump in the polls Trump received has started to dissipate as tomorrow looms. It was looking like he had a chance if the election were a month away instead of a day (been gaining ground). But that seems to have been dispelled. And the full effect of the FBI confirming that they're not advising the DoJ to investigate Clinton has yet to be realized in the polls, but could be realized tomorrow.
Nonpartisan redistricting for the foreseeable future.
In the long term, I'd like a system where in the seats are awarded proportionally based on the popular vote. So a 70-30 vote split in a red state would yield 2 Reps, 1 Dem instead of 3 Reps like at the moment, and vice versa. Democrats usually wins NY by 20 points, but I think they have about 70% of house seats, so partisan gerrymandering works there as well.
I think you might actually want to look up some history and you will notice that the way Senate seats are awarded is actually not a new thing Having two senators per state in one chamber of the congress (The Senate) was designed to balance out the power in the House that high population states would have. You might also want to look at historical control of the Senate and find that it has shifted between Republican and Democratic.
This is a pretty handy chart
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
So is this pne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
Was not that long ago that the Democrats had control of the Senate (from 2007 until 2015) , which sort of shoots your whole theory of the way Senators are awarded is rigged in the favor of Republicans. If you study the chart you will find some sizeable time frames where the Senate was controlled by the Democrats. Check out Senate control from 1955 until 1981.
There are even large chunks of time where the Democrats controlled the House. Even some years not all that long ago (IE in the 2000's).
You are a bit off in your analysis of the result of the way Senate seats are awarded to States.
But yes whenever any party gains control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate, they can maintain strong control over what happens in the country, with laws, judicial appointments, etc etc etc. Though when it has happened, things have not always been as easy as the party in power had hoped they would be.
But NO, a huge NO, to the idea that the way Senate seats are set up means the Republicans will almost always control the Senate. History proves that wrong, that control will change over time, as the parties change and as the people change.
Last edited:
I hope Hillary takes care of business tomorrow. Word on the street is Drumpf will name Newt Gingrich as Secretary of State if he wins.
I would be more concerned about his pick for SecDef.
fml. Wonder how Trump will take defeat. After everything he has said I just can't see him honourably taking defeat.
Main thing for me is that Trump does not win. I can put off the battle to gain control of BOTH the House and Senate till another year. Though ideally the Senate goes Democrat also this time around. I never saw the House swinging Democrat in one election cycle, but another cycle or two after this one and yeah I see it going Democrat, providing Hillary doesn't screw the pooch.
If Drumpf loses, I think it's inevitable there will be violence. Nothing compared to if he wins mind you.
Gen. Flynn seems like his most reputable advisor in the Def field, no?
Wonder how Trump will take defeat. After everything he has said I just can't see him honourably taking defeat.
Bigly.
A former general in a civilian command...not sure if there is any legislation prohibiting it but certainly a potential for disaster.
- Status