@jjstraka34 You have expressed many times your absolute distaste for the electoral college. Considering that the odds of it being abolished in favor of the electoral college are almost zero, I would be interested in hearing your opinion for a viable replacement (which is much more likely).
I'd suggest looking at Germany: National Parliament, or Budgestag, directly elected on proportional representation by weight of seats of each Bundesland, or Federal State.
As an Upper House, Bundesrat, nominated by each Federal Parliament, locally voted in by proportional system by electorate of each Bundseland. (or "State")
For non-federal countries I am no fan of two chamber system, but Germans have it perfected, as far as I am concerned.
Edit:
Let it be added: the National Parliament is seen as having the lead in law making for the land, whereas Budesrat adds secondary scrutiny of constitutionality; and ensuring rightful delineation of national and state level competentcies.
Above all this, is the Bundespräsident, or the President of the Frederal Republic that has little actual power, but great moral weight at best. I envy Germany for Joachim Gauck.
@mashedtaters: I'm fairly certain the replacement for the electoral college would just be a direct popular vote. Nothing more complicated than that. I've never heard of anyone who advocates revising the electoral college; I've only heard of people wanting to abolish it outright.
Abolition would be incredibly difficult, but revision is even less likely. I can't imagine anybody going to the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment--one of the most difficult things to do in our system--just to revise one of the single most unpopular parts of the Constitution.
I hear people saying the electoral college should be preserved and other people saying it should be abolished. Nobody is asking for something in between.
@mashedtaters: I'm fairly certain the replacement for the electoral college would just be a direct popular vote. Nothing more complicated than that. I've never heard of anyone who advocates revising the electoral college; I've only heard of people wanting to abolish it outright.
Abolition would be incredibly difficult, but revision is even less likely. I can't imagine anybody going to the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment--one of the most difficult things to do in our system--just to revise one of the single most unpopular parts of the Constitution.
I hear people saying the electoral college should be preserved and other people saying it should be abolished. Nobody is asking for something in between.
@semiticgod Many people have advocated here and in other places that the state's electoral votes should be divided, rather than lumped into one candidate based on popular vote in that state. That would overwhelmingly favor the Republican Party, and I am not in favor of that. Regardless, my point wasn't that people want it revised. I know that people want it abolished. My point was which is more likely (as follows): Abolishing the electoral college would favor the Democratic Party (currently). Keeping it in place seems to slightly favor the Republican Party (currently). I believe if it became enough of a public issue, the two parties would try to reach a compromise. That is why I said it is more likely. There are many alternatives out there to both the electoral college and the popular vote. As it is now, it doesn't matter to me because the President is the only official elected this way. I believe that local voting is more important. But I would be interested in discussing my question: what are viable alternatives for our current republic to the electoral college?
I hear people saying the electoral college should be preserved and other people saying it should be abolished. Nobody is asking for something in between.
I think there should be more consideration given to the system used by Maine and Nebraska, where electoral votes are divided up instead of simply being collectively awarded to a single "winner." But for as long as the country remains divided up into 50 different states, a system of state electors is still the most appropriate for a nationwide vote IMO.
China lodged an official complaint over the call between Trump and Taiwan.
Meaning that they've lodged one more complaint over a simple phone call than they did over the Tiananmen Square massacre.
This whole situation makes China look far worse than it does Trump IMO.
How you figure it makes them look worse? Trump was the guy who had no idea what he was doing when he called the president of Taiwan when thats not allowed.
If trump wants to go to war with China to free Taiwan then by all means keep up the doing what you are doing.
How you figure it makes them look worse? Trump was the guy who had no idea what he was doing when he called the president of Taiwan when thats not allowed.
If trump wants to go to war with China to free Taiwan then by all means keep up the doing what you are doing.
I am shocked you would mention war - only leaders of countries want that, sometimes - and that is on the assumption they will not suffer but gain power. It is the citizen of that country that are expected to kill, or to be killed.
As to the Taiwan thing - Taiwan does not want to be part of China. A particularly admirable, rare and dear friend of mine is a Taiwanese - she does not think she is Chinese, but Taiwanese.
If Taiwan has to fear Tibet annexation, just because China is so bruising - where does it stop?
I would've thought the first sentence in my post made that clear.
China is persisting with a childish charade in which Taiwan's independent, democratically elected government somehow doesn't exist, and expecting the whole rest of the world to just silently go along with it.
I would've thought the first sentence in my post made that clear.
China is persisting with a childish charade in which Taiwan's independent, democratically elected government somehow doesn't exist, and expecting the whole rest of the world to just silently go along with it.
It is not a childish charade to China for sure.
Taiwan has a complex history and has been allowed a democratically elected government. China could change its mind and invade Taiwan and crush it - especially if they take this arrangement for granted. The only reason Taiwan exists like that is because China allows it. They are a democracy by the grace of China.
If China invaded Taiwan who would help it? Would it hold out against the entire might of China right next door long enough for anybody to do anything? Would Trump go to war over Taiwan? Would the Brexit UK or any other power stop China from "reclaiming its territory"?
I would've thought the first sentence in my post made that clear.
China is persisting with a childish charade in which Taiwan's independent, democratically elected government somehow doesn't exist, and expecting the whole rest of the world to just silently go along with it.
It is not a childish charade to China for sure.
Taiwan has a complex history and has been allowed a democratically elected government. China could change its mind and invade Taiwan and crush it - especially if they take this arrangement for granted. The only reason Taiwan exists like that is because China allows it. They are a democracy by the grace of China.
If China invaded Taiwan who would help it? Would it hold out against the entire might of China right next door long enough for anybody to do anything? Would Trump go to war over Taiwan? Would the Brexit UK or any other power stop China from "reclaiming its territory"?
Unless something's changed since last time I looked into this, China can't just invade Taiwan. Their military is very powerful on land, but their ability to project that power is nowhere what they need to invade Taiwan. Add in the probability that the US joins in, and they've got basically no chance of getting enough land power onto the island.
The focus should be on why the hell we continue to allow these areas of the country to have wholly disproportionate influence on who takes the office.
Because the people who are protesting the system now weren't complaining back when they thought it would work in their favor. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn3f0Xav6-w
Throughout US history, the electoral vote has FREQUENTLY not been reflective of the popular vote - even 4 years ago, Obama won by an electoral margin that was grossly out of proportion to the popular one. If people were so intrinsically opposed to the concept of an electoral system, then they should've been protesting it before the election- just like Jill Stein and her supporters shouldn't have waited until after the election to suddenly decide that the country's recount protocols needed "reform" (though only in states that Trump won, by some weird coincidence). It's akin to someone losing a round of poker, and then refusing to pay his bet because he suddenly decides that he doesn't like the rules of the game.
Much like healthcare, there is a reason NO other country in western world does things this way.
The US was founded with the express purpose of doing things differently than the rest of the world - that shouldn't necessarily be a source of surprise or criticism.
Taiwan has a complex history and has been allowed a democratically elected government. China could change its mind and invade Taiwan and crush it - especially if they take this arrangement for granted. The only reason Taiwan exists like that is because China allows it. They are a democracy by the grace of China.
If China invaded Taiwan who would help it? Would it hold out against the entire might of China right next door long enough for anybody to do anything? Would Trump go to war over Taiwan? Would the Brexit UK or any other power stop China from "reclaiming its territory"?
As a Finn I take an exception to what you say.
Maybe you ask that Finland should mind its ways greatly, because a powerful nation Russia is our neighbour. I don't think we should, as I feel no special anonymity towards Russia - I think it should be our top three individual neighbour with Sweden and Estonia.
But your insipid view of "big neigbour = domination" could be extended maybe even more acutely to Estonia that actually was most devastatingly behind the iron curtain post WW2.
If you ask me as a Finn to accept that our neighbour Estonia should just suck it up because Russia is pretty grand, I say no. Rather I think all of EU should show solidarity to Estonia, and I hope Finland is the first amongst them. I hope and trust the sentiment is the same ohter way around.
The US was founded with the express purpose of doing things differently than the rest of the world - that shouldn't necessarily be a source of surprise or criticism.
Like religious tolerance - I do not cite genocide of the native folks, because that is regrettably very banal.
I liked my time in the US, very much - but I cannot say I sensed the need to belong to the greater world. You are saying the same?
The focus should be on why the hell we continue to allow these areas of the country to have wholly disproportionate influence on who takes the office.
Because the people who are protesting the system now weren't complaining back when they thought it would work in their favor. Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn3f0Xav6-w
Throughout US history, the electoral vote has FREQUENTLY not been reflective of the popular vote - even 4 years ago, Obama won by an electoral margin that was grossly out of proportion to the popular one. If people were so intrinsically opposed to the concept of an electoral system, then they should've been protesting it before the election- just like Jill Stein and her supporters shouldn't have waited until after the election to suddenly decide that the country's recount protocols needed "reform" (though only in states that Trump won, by some weird coincidence). It's akin to someone losing a round of poker, and then refusing to pay his bet because he suddenly decides that he doesn't like the rules of the game.
Much like healthcare, there is a reason NO other country in western world does things this way.
The US was founded with the express purpose of doing things differently than the rest of the world - that shouldn't necessarily be a source of surprise or criticism.
What difference does it make if Obama's popular vote margin wasn't as large as his Electoral one if the result in both were the same?? And yeah, it hasn't been reflective. It's denied the popular vote winner the office TWICE in the last 16 years. Furthermore, Republicans haven't gotten the majority of the votes for President in 6 of the last 7 elections. Yet they've been in total power for about half that time. I'm not saying the rules aren't the rules. I'm saying the rules are ridiculous. What exactly is so radical about whoever gets the most votes wins??
As for the clip, the state polling was off. There was no reason to think it would be based on the last two decades of Presidential polling. It's been right on the mark up to this point. The national polls ended up being (surprise) pretty much EXACTLY correct (and 2% win for Clinton). The only places it really missed was those 3 States. Everything else pretty much turned out exactly how it was predicted. But giving Rachel Maddow crap for believing polling is pretty ridiculous considering there was 20 years of evidence pointing to it being very reliable.
Maybe you ask that Finland should mind its ways greatly, because a powerful nation Russia is our neighbour. I don't think we should, as I feel no special anonymity towards Russia - I think it should be our top three individual neighbour with Sweden and Estonia.
But your insipid view of "big neigbour = domination" could be extended maybe even more acutely to Estonia that actually was most devastatingly behind the iron curtain post WW2.
If you ask me as a Finn to accept that our neighbour Estonia should just suck it up because Russia is pretty grand, I say no. Rather I think all of EU should show solidarity to Estonia, and I hope Finland is the first amongst them. I hope and trust the sentiment is the same ohter way around.
I'm not asking anything. My opinion on whether Taiwan should be independent or not is irrelevant. I'm not the one who would like to be free but is recognized as a part of a country with billions of people and a government that is not one to be toyed with.
A more appropriate example would be Ukraine. It sorta managed to break free? But Russia doesn't really accept it and has pretty much invaded and reclaimed territory. Are Americans helping the Ukraine against Russian aggression?
Would Americans like Taiwan to be free? Maybe. Would they fight for them to be free against China? No they would not. Would China fight to squash Taiwan? I think they would.
Back in the day of WW2, the US didn't lift a finger while Germany ransacked Europe then watched them bomb the crap out of the UK. Didn't get involved until Pearl Harbor happened.
I'm not asking anything. My opinion on whether Taiwan should be independent or not is irrelevant. I'm not the one who would like to be free but is recognized as a part of a country with billions of people and a government that is not one to be toyed with.
A more appropriate example would be Ukraine. It sorta managed to break free? But Russia doesn't really accept it and has pretty much invaded and reclaimed territory. Are Americans helping the Ukraine against Russian aggression?
Would Americans like Taiwan to be free? Maybe. Would they fight for them to be free against China? No they would not. Would China fight to squash Taiwan? I think they would.
Back in the day of WW2, the US didn't lift a finger while Germany ransacked Europe then watched them bomb the crap out of the UK. Didn't get involved until Pearl Harbor happened.
I am sorry - your thread of reasoning is less than ideal to me. Finland and Estonia have no lesser right to be sovereign than Ukraine.
And my personal view is: all three of us, Finland, Estonia and Ukraine should indeed be sovereign.
Plus I love my Taiwanese friend, and would very ill feel if she all of a sudden were forced to be Chinese.
By your account, I wonder which country should or could be sovereign, truly?
Not Taiwan. Not Ukraine. By lack of solidarity not Finland. You tell! ;-)
Taiwan has a complex history and has been allowed a democratically elected government. China could change its mind and invade Taiwan and crush it - especially if they take this arrangement for granted. The only reason Taiwan exists like that is because China allows it. They are a democracy by the grace of China.
This is a huge overestimation of the Chinese government's goodwill towards the Taiwanese.
The only reason China has not invaded Taiwan and removed the democratically elected government is because the United States is bound by law to defend it, not because the Chinese government tolerates Taiwanese democracy. They view Taiwan's government as the last obstacle standing in the way of ending "century of humiliation." The Chinese government is adamantly opposed to it.
China has never "allowed" Taiwan to elect its own officials. It has been the official stance of the Chinese Communist Party for the past 70 years that Taiwanese democracy is unacceptable--indeed, so unacceptable that waging war against Taiwan would be justified. The Chinese Communists were planning to invade shortly after taking control of the mainland, but the Korean War scrambled the effort and left the U.S. in a dominant position on Taiwan. Today, the Chinese only hold back on the condition that Taiwan never declares independence.
I cannot stress enough the outrage that the Chinese Communist Party feels about Taiwan's government. The Party has been very clear that the Taiwan issue is the single biggest problem in Sino-American relations, and the problem is that the U.S. is protecting Taiwan.
The reason Taiwan is a democracy is because the Taiwanese government peacefully transitioned to a liberal democratic system in the 1990s--China contributed nothing to Taiwan's government. The reason that democracy has survived is because the U.S. government is preventing China from invading Taiwan and overthrowing the Taiwanese state through force of arms.
That's not the American view of the issue, either. That's the Chinese view. They have been extremely vocal about their opposition to any government in Taiwan that is not under the direct control of Beijing.
The thing about Trump is all he really wants is respect. He wants to sit in the big chair and have flunkies and foreign leaders bow and scrape to him. And he is willing to do or say absolutely anything to achieve that goal. So yeah, he cares more about people taking the piss out of him on TV than he does about running his country or actially achieving anything he said to get people to vote for him. That is why it rankles so much that he lost the poplular vote that he is willing to undermine his own position to challenge it.
Its hard to believe that people knew he was like this: a faker, a blowhard, a guy only wants to enrich himself, a thin skinned guy who wants to surround himself with suck ups, a guy who's proud of cheating other people to get ahead, a man with no plan other than "being the best".
And people thought well yeah he's like that but I'm going to vote for him anyway.
I'm sure it's a lot easier for people on the outside looking on, with media which, whilst not completely unbiased (because that isn't possible), is at least fairly non-partisan, to form an accurate impression.
The thing about Trump is all he really wants is respect. He wants to sit in the big chair and have flunkies and foreign leaders bow and scrape to him. And he is willing to do or say absolutely anything to achieve that goal. So yeah, he cares more about people taking the piss out of him on TV than he does about running his country or actially achieving anything he said to get people to vote for him. That is why it rankles so much that he lost the poplular vote that he is willing to undermine his own position to challenge it.
Its hard to believe that people knew he was like this: a faker, a blowhard, a guy only wants to enrich himself, a thin skinned guy who wants to surround himself with suck ups, a guy who's proud of cheating other people to get ahead, a man with no plan other than "being the best".
And people thought well yeah he's like that but I'm going to vote for him anyway.
I'm sure it's a lot easier for people on the outside looking on, with media which, whilst not completely unbiased (because that isn't possible), is at least fairly non-partisan, to form an accurate impression.
People believe the same of Hillary voters anyway. They were both unbearably terrible choices, it hardly mattered who won.
How you figure it makes them look worse? Trump was the guy who had no idea what he was doing when he called the president of Taiwan when thats not allowed.
If trump wants to go to war with China to free Taiwan then by all means keep up the doing what you are doing.
I am shocked you would mention war - only leaders of countries want that, sometimes - and that is on the assumption they will not suffer but gain power. It is the citizen of that country that are expected to kill, or to be killed.
As to the Taiwan thing - Taiwan does not want to be part of China. A particularly admirable, rare and dear friend of mine is a Taiwanese - she does not think she is Chinese, but Taiwanese.
If Taiwan has to fear Tibet annexation, just because China is so bruising - where does it stop?
It's clear you have little knowledge of the situation with Taiwan. It's actually very close to the situation that precipitated the (1st) American civil war.
Imagine if California decided that it was not willing to accept Trump as president, so they set up their own presidency and their own congress, and declared that that was the legitimate government of the USA. Should foreign powers deal with the Trump government or the California government?
If California wished to break of the U.S., they should be allowed to do so. If Canada and the U.S. (or ANY neighboring country) can co-exist as separate entities, why not hypothetical California or Taiwan?
And I would have come out just as strong had she made that statement as President. But the fact is the chances of President Hillary Clinton wasting her time pursuing a flag-burning law are pretty close to zero. No doubt that was a cowardly position to take in the Senate to move to the "center". Let me state I don't know WHAT Hillary Clinton believes at her core about many things, nor do I care. What I did care about was the ability of her to be pressured politically. In my opinion, her willingness to shift positions was the most refreshing thing about her. I'm not concerned with the naive idea of "core principles".
And I would have come out just as strong had she made that statement as President. But the fact is the chances of President Hillary Clinton wasting her time pursuing a flag-burning law are pretty close to zero. No doubt that was a cowardly position to take in the Senate to move to the "center". Let me state I don't know WHAT Hillary Clinton believes at her core about many things, nor do I care. What I did care about was the ability of her to be pressured politically. In my opinion, her willingness to shift positions was the most refreshing thing about her. I'm not concerned with the naive idea of "core principles".
"Her willingness to shift positions was the most refreshing thing about her" and "her ability to be pressured politically"? I've never heard "just saying what I think you want to hear so I can get in power" twisted in such a positive light. That same trait, "shifting positions", has been decried as one of the most damning things about Trump in this very thread on more occasions than I can count. Every politician does this, this is not a positive, unique thing about Clinton, and on that same note it does not make Trump negatively unique by virtue of that trait either.
Unlike Trump, who so far has only tweeted about punishment for the flag desecration, Clinton's support of the flag protection act, including her investment of large amounts of taxpayer money into it becoming an actual amendment to the bill of rights, contributed to it only failing in congress by one vote in 2006. That is a much bigger "ACTUAL threat to free speech" than Trump's moronic tweet. So, no, definitely not close to zero.
I have said many times that these two candidates are the same. They're just packaged with different policies. Unlike as has been insinuated many times in this thread, there are actual legitimate reasons that people voted for Hillary's opponent that are beyond a voter being conned or their respective ignorance.
The thing about Trump is all he really wants is respect. He wants to sit in the big chair and have flunkies and foreign leaders bow and scrape to him. And he is willing to do or say absolutely anything to achieve that goal. So yeah, he cares more about people taking the piss out of him on TV than he does about running his country or actially achieving anything he said to get people to vote for him. That is why it rankles so much that he lost the poplular vote that he is willing to undermine his own position to challenge it.
Its hard to believe that people knew he was like this: a faker, a blowhard, a guy only wants to enrich himself, a thin skinned guy who wants to surround himself with suck ups, a guy who's proud of cheating other people to get ahead, a man with no plan other than "being the best".
And people thought well yeah he's like that but I'm going to vote for him anyway.
I'm sure it's a lot easier for people on the outside looking on, with media which, whilst not completely unbiased (because that isn't possible), is at least fairly non-partisan, to form an accurate impression.
It's not media slant that forced trump to say he could grab em by the pussy and they let him do it because he's famous. It's not the media when Trump called himself John Bolton and John Barron and bragged how Donald Trump could get any woman. It wasn't the media that made the trump university scam. It's not the media that refused to release his tax records. The foolish statements that come from his mouth don't need any slant.
There are a lot of people who read things like pizzagate on breitbart and believe it though. Kellyanne Conway said you are not under oath as she's professionally lying on the TV.
What I did care about was the ability of her to be pressured politically. In my opinion, her willingness to shift positions was the most refreshing thing about her.
I'd actually say this is a good thing, @mashedtaters. Trump shifts his positions based on random whims. Hillary shifts her positions based on popular opinion. One of those is much more likely to represent my interests.
That being said, the question is whether a politician who shifts their positions is changing their policy or just changing their words. If it's the former, we've got a politician who is very responsive to the people. If it's the latter, we've got a politician who's just trying to cling to power.
What I did care about was the ability of her to be pressured politically. In my opinion, her willingness to shift positions was the most refreshing thing about her.
I'd actually say this is a good thing, @mashedtaters. Trump shifts his positions based on random whims. Hillary shifts her positions based on popular opinion. One of those is much more likely to represent my interests.
That being said, the question is whether a politician who shifts their positions is changing their policy or just changing their words. If it's the former, we've got a politician who is very responsive to the people. If it's the latter, we've got a politician who's just trying to cling to power.
I disagree that Hillary changes her stance based on popular opinion or desires of the majority, the evidence contradicts this; she has switched back and forth on just about every major political view our county has considered, from abortion to gay marriage to taxes, sometimes multiple times and seemingly on a whim with no regard for polls. This indicates to me that she says whatever the current highest bidder has backed her to say. She doesn't care what the people want at all, she only cares about obtaining power, and she shares this in common with Trump. I don't think most of what Trump sayss reflects a formed, intelligent opinion on anything; he just says whatever is in his brain at the time, without considering the consequences. The policies of both candidates, however, reflect their party's goals.
Comments
As an Upper House, Bundesrat, nominated by each Federal Parliament, locally voted in by proportional system by electorate of each Bundseland. (or "State")
For non-federal countries I am no fan of two chamber system, but Germans have it perfected, as far as I am concerned.
Edit:
Let it be added: the National Parliament is seen as having the lead in law making for the land, whereas Budesrat adds secondary scrutiny of constitutionality; and ensuring rightful delineation of national and state level competentcies.
Above all this, is the Bundespräsident, or the President of the Frederal Republic that has little actual power, but great moral weight at best. I envy Germany for Joachim Gauck.
Abolition would be incredibly difficult, but revision is even less likely. I can't imagine anybody going to the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment--one of the most difficult things to do in our system--just to revise one of the single most unpopular parts of the Constitution.
I hear people saying the electoral college should be preserved and other people saying it should be abolished. Nobody is asking for something in between.
Many people have advocated here and in other places that the state's electoral votes should be divided, rather than lumped into one candidate based on popular vote in that state. That would overwhelmingly favor the Republican Party, and I am not in favor of that.
Regardless, my point wasn't that people want it revised. I know that people want it abolished. My point was which is more likely (as follows):
Abolishing the electoral college would favor the Democratic Party (currently). Keeping it in place seems to slightly favor the Republican Party (currently). I believe if it became enough of a public issue, the two parties would try to reach a compromise. That is why I said it is more likely.
There are many alternatives out there to both the electoral college and the popular vote.
As it is now, it doesn't matter to me because the President is the only official elected this way. I believe that local voting is more important.
But I would be interested in discussing my question: what are viable alternatives for our current republic to the electoral college?
If trump wants to go to war with China to free Taiwan then by all means keep up the doing what you are doing.
As to the Taiwan thing - Taiwan does not want to be part of China. A particularly admirable, rare and dear friend of mine is a Taiwanese - she does not think she is Chinese, but Taiwanese.
If Taiwan has to fear Tibet annexation, just because China is so bruising - where does it stop?
China is persisting with a childish charade in which Taiwan's independent, democratically elected government somehow doesn't exist, and expecting the whole rest of the world to just silently go along with it.
Taiwan has a complex history and has been allowed a democratically elected government. China could change its mind and invade Taiwan and crush it - especially if they take this arrangement for granted. The only reason Taiwan exists like that is because China allows it. They are a democracy by the grace of China.
If China invaded Taiwan who would help it? Would it hold out against the entire might of China right next door long enough for anybody to do anything? Would Trump go to war over Taiwan? Would the Brexit UK or any other power stop China from "reclaiming its territory"?
Throughout US history, the electoral vote has FREQUENTLY not been reflective of the popular vote - even 4 years ago, Obama won by an electoral margin that was grossly out of proportion to the popular one. If people were so intrinsically opposed to the concept of an electoral system, then they should've been protesting it before the election- just like Jill Stein and her supporters shouldn't have waited until after the election to suddenly decide that the country's recount protocols needed "reform" (though only in states that Trump won, by some weird coincidence). It's akin to someone losing a round of poker, and then refusing to pay his bet because he suddenly decides that he doesn't like the rules of the game.
The US was founded with the express purpose of doing things differently than the rest of the world - that shouldn't necessarily be a source of surprise or criticism.
Maybe you ask that Finland should mind its ways greatly, because a powerful nation Russia is our neighbour. I don't think we should, as I feel no special anonymity towards Russia - I think it should be our top three individual neighbour with Sweden and Estonia.
But your insipid view of "big neigbour = domination" could be extended maybe even more acutely to Estonia that actually was most devastatingly behind the iron curtain post WW2.
If you ask me as a Finn to accept that our neighbour Estonia should just suck it up because Russia is pretty grand, I say no. Rather I think all of EU should show solidarity to Estonia, and I hope Finland is the first amongst them. I hope and trust the sentiment is the same ohter way around.
"Day 4 totals:
Trump gained 356 votes
Trump lost 246 votes
Trump net gain on day 4: 110 votes
Clinton gained 296 votes
Clinton lost 225 votes
Clinton net gain on day 4: 71 votes
Thus, Trump has inched ahead by another net 39 votes as of day 4 of the recount."
I liked my time in the US, very much - but I cannot say I sensed the need to belong to the greater world. You are saying the same?
As for the clip, the state polling was off. There was no reason to think it would be based on the last two decades of Presidential polling. It's been right on the mark up to this point. The national polls ended up being (surprise) pretty much EXACTLY correct (and 2% win for Clinton). The only places it really missed was those 3 States. Everything else pretty much turned out exactly how it was predicted. But giving Rachel Maddow crap for believing polling is pretty ridiculous considering there was 20 years of evidence pointing to it being very reliable.
A more appropriate example would be Ukraine. It sorta managed to break free? But Russia doesn't really accept it and has pretty much invaded and reclaimed territory. Are Americans helping the Ukraine against Russian aggression?
Would Americans like Taiwan to be free? Maybe. Would they fight for them to be free against China? No they would not. Would China fight to squash Taiwan? I think they would.
Back in the day of WW2, the US didn't lift a finger while Germany ransacked Europe then watched them bomb the crap out of the UK. Didn't get involved until Pearl Harbor happened.
If it's all on the up and up great. If it is not we need to know.
And my personal view is: all three of us, Finland, Estonia and Ukraine should indeed be sovereign.
Plus I love my Taiwanese friend, and would very ill feel if she all of a sudden were forced to be Chinese.
By your account, I wonder which country should or could be sovereign, truly?
Not Taiwan. Not Ukraine. By lack of solidarity not Finland. You tell! ;-)
The only reason China has not invaded Taiwan and removed the democratically elected government is because the United States is bound by law to defend it, not because the Chinese government tolerates Taiwanese democracy. They view Taiwan's government as the last obstacle standing in the way of ending "century of humiliation." The Chinese government is adamantly opposed to it.
China has never "allowed" Taiwan to elect its own officials. It has been the official stance of the Chinese Communist Party for the past 70 years that Taiwanese democracy is unacceptable--indeed, so unacceptable that waging war against Taiwan would be justified. The Chinese Communists were planning to invade shortly after taking control of the mainland, but the Korean War scrambled the effort and left the U.S. in a dominant position on Taiwan. Today, the Chinese only hold back on the condition that Taiwan never declares independence.
I cannot stress enough the outrage that the Chinese Communist Party feels about Taiwan's government. The Party has been very clear that the Taiwan issue is the single biggest problem in Sino-American relations, and the problem is that the U.S. is protecting Taiwan.
The reason Taiwan is a democracy is because the Taiwanese government peacefully transitioned to a liberal democratic system in the 1990s--China contributed nothing to Taiwan's government. The reason that democracy has survived is because the U.S. government is preventing China from invading Taiwan and overthrowing the Taiwanese state through force of arms.
That's not the American view of the issue, either. That's the Chinese view. They have been extremely vocal about their opposition to any government in Taiwan that is not under the direct control of Beijing.
Imagine if California decided that it was not willing to accept Trump as president, so they set up their own presidency and their own congress, and declared that that was the legitimate government of the USA. Should foreign powers deal with the Trump government or the California government?
What exactly do you mean?
Unlike Trump, who so far has only tweeted about punishment for the flag desecration, Clinton's support of the flag protection act, including her investment of large amounts of taxpayer money into it becoming an actual amendment to the bill of rights, contributed to it only failing in congress by one vote in 2006. That is a much bigger "ACTUAL threat to free speech" than Trump's moronic tweet. So, no, definitely not close to zero.
I have said many times that these two candidates are the same. They're just packaged with different policies. Unlike as has been insinuated many times in this thread, there are actual legitimate reasons that people voted for Hillary's opponent that are beyond a voter being conned or their respective ignorance.
There are a lot of people who read things like pizzagate on breitbart and believe it though. Kellyanne Conway said you are not under oath as she's professionally lying on the TV.
That being said, the question is whether a politician who shifts their positions is changing their policy or just changing their words. If it's the former, we've got a politician who is very responsive to the people. If it's the latter, we've got a politician who's just trying to cling to power.
She doesn't care what the people want at all, she only cares about obtaining power, and she shares this in common with Trump.
I don't think most of what Trump sayss reflects a formed, intelligent opinion on anything; he just says whatever is in his brain at the time, without considering the consequences.
The policies of both candidates, however, reflect their party's goals.