The Donald Trump Thread

I haven't researched the issue, but I will say this seems less a Trump-thing and more a "what we should expect from a Republican president with a republican controlled congress" thing.

Aye. They were testing sending this crude to Europe back in 2014, they did a bit more testing in 2015. Europe has already upgraded most of its refineries to process these heavy oils. Peugeot, Citroen, Ford already have catalyst/DPF diesel engines in place to deal with the higher sulphur content in these fuels. Clearly it's been planned for a long time, but resisted by the previous US administration - for some reason. Continental America has almost 400 years worth of conventional/unconventional oil reserves available. They could apparently supply the world for about 35 years if they wanted, that was back in the mid 2000's. They obviously intended to supply Europe. God knows where we're going here...
 
I want to comment on this [edit: Robbie posted again in the meantime; I was referring to his post on abortion] but I also don't want to derail this thread. Should we start a new thread on the (il)legitimacy of abortion, or are folks already too tired of this debate before it (re)starts?

Nah, just go for it I say.

Good one, I did: The (im)morality of abortion. Hopefully we can divert that part of the conversation in this thread to that thread.
 
What is the problem with fracking?

The biggest one is that it pollutes groundwater, including groundwater used for drinking. Another problem - at least here in Australia - is the forcible construction of wells on freehold farmland. There may be others of which I am not well aware.
 
Are we going to pretend the voter fraud thing, and the pro torture thing did not happen?



This man is beyond what any parody of someone like him would look like.
 
Are we going to pretend the voter fraud thing, and the pro torture thing did not happen?

Regarding voter fraud, I am guessing that things in the US are somewhat as they are in Britain - everyone is uneasy that postal votes can be abused, and the system feels loose. I would say that voting is at the heart of our democracy, and real effort should be made to seek out fraud and to make fraud as difficult as possible.

Regarding torture, I would rather the President had not said what he said about water-boarding, but to put it into context, the Bush administration collaborated with our country to send people to be tortured in other countries - the process was called "Special Rendition".

David
 
Seems like China might step into a trade deal with Mexico if US/Mexico relations break down?

China really seems to be the sleeping tiger awoken. Whether its aging population can be supported by its upcoming generation seems like a barrier to establishing itself as an economic power down the line...though I'm far from convinced that's an insurmountable problem...
 
Seems like China might step into a trade deal with Mexico if US/Mexico relations break down?

China really seems to be the sleeping tiger awoken. Whether its aging population can be supported by its upcoming generation seems like a barrier to establishing itself as an economic power down the line...though I'm far from convinced that's an insurmountable problem...

Whilst America is gazing at its own navel, China amd Russia will be the global beneficiaries.
 
The biggest one is that it pollutes groundwater, including groundwater used for drinking. Another problem - at least here in Australia - is the forcible construction of wells on freehold farmland. There may be others of which I am not well aware.
Is fracking happening in Australia, and if it is, how much trouble is it causing? My impression is that the Greens dislike fracking mainly because it will still be fossil fuel.

David
 
Regarding voter fraud, I am guessing that things in the US are somewhat as they are in Britain - everyone is uneasy that postal votes can be abused, and the system feels loose. I would say that voting is at the heart of our democracy, and real effort should be made to seek out fraud and to make fraud as difficult as possible.
What Trump thinks is happening, has noting to with that, the Trump interview starts at 1min 40sec :

He literally thinks millions of illegals have taken the risk of registering, just to vote against him.
He does not understand that people (if i understand the american voting system correctly) can die between registering to vote and the election day.
Or that people can move to another state in that period of time.
This is not about voter fraud, this is about vanity, this is about his ego not being able to cope with him not having won the popular vote.
Why is the number of votes, he claims are fraudulent, exactly the number he needs to surpass HC in the popular vote?

Regarding torture, I would rather the President had not said what he said about water-boarding, but to put it into context, the Bush administration collaborated with our country to send people to be tortured in other countries - the process was called "Special Rendition".

David
I remember that, it was a disgrace, a crime actually.
And that is exactly what he wants to reinstate, he even talked about doing it in another country .
So abortion is immoral, but torture isn't?

Why the knee jerk reaction to defend him?
 
Why the knee jerk reaction to defend him?

I didn't defend him on torture, did I - I just commented that other politicians say one thing and do another.

I think voting is important, and I don't think it is reasonable for it to be treated so casually. Ideally all ballots should be cast on paper, and counted manually. In the modern world, it should also be possible to detect people who vote twice, or who impersonate someone who is dead. Postal votes should be tightly controlled. When I campaigned for Brexit, a lot of people opined that the establishment would 'fix it'. In the end they didn't - or at least didn't succeed - but casual voting mechanisms breed a certain cynicism and defeatism.

David
 
I didn't defend him on torture, did I - I just commented that other politicians say one thing and do another.

I think voting is important, and I don't think it is reasonable for it to be treated so casually. Ideally all ballots should be cast on paper, and counted manually. In the modern world, it should also be possible to detect people who vote twice, or who impersonate someone who is dead. Postal votes should be tightly controlled. When I campaigned for Brexit, a lot of people opined that the establishment would 'fix it'. In the end they didn't - or at least didn't succeed - but casual voting mechanisms breed a certain cynicism and defeatism.

David

I would rather eliminate the legislative branch of government and let the people vote directly on legislation by phone or internet. Elected representatives could still be involved in drafting legislation, but in modern times, there is no reason why we need elected representatives to vote on legislation, they were needed when transportation and communication was slower but are obsolete today.
 
Last edited:
I would rather eliminate the legislative branch of government and let the people vote directly on legislation by phone or internet. Elected representatives could still be involved in drafting legislation, but in modern times, there is no reason why we need elected representatives to vote on legislation, they were needed when transportation and communication was slower but are obsolete today.

You don't think that, to some extent, long term legislators gain a certain expertise through service in committees, discussions with varied groups, etc?
 
I would rather eliminate the legislative branch of government and let the people vote directly on legislation by phone or internet. Elected representatives could still be involved in drafting legislation, but in modern times, there is no reason why we need elected representatives to vote on legislation, they were needed when transportation and communication was slower but are obsolete today.
As a U.S. citizen, I would in not way want that broad responsibility. I should also say I would be highly uncomfortable with other folks having this responsibility.

Perhaps on certain, large and well understood issues, yes.

I liken it to times I've been in professional settings where a leader has called for a "show of hands" in a meeting. Typically, there are a couple of folks in the room with significantly greater expertise and nuanced understanding of the issue at hand. A purely democratic resolution in these settings has typically led to poor decisions.

Transparency and accountability seem to be lacking in our republic, but the answer isn't giving all legislative responsibility to the public at large. Scary thought for me.
 
Is fracking happening in Australia, and if it is, how much trouble is it causing? My impression is that the Greens dislike fracking mainly because it will still be fossil fuel.

David

I haven't been following the issue closely, but from what I gather, some states have either banned it or put in place a moratorium, whilst others have not. I think the Greens (as do others) dislike fracking for more than just it being a mining of a fossil fuel, but also because it pollutes and because it is (was) forced upon landowners. A popular movie was made about this issue in Australia, which I've been meaning to watch but haven't done so yet - it sounds very informative and even entertaining, maybe folks here would be interested in it (unfortunately it's not free to view): Frackman.
 
I would rather eliminate the legislative branch of government and let the people vote directly on legislation by phone or internet. Elected representatives could still be involved in drafting legislation, but in modern times, there is no reason why we need elected representatives to vote on legislation, they were needed when transportation and communication was slower but are obsolete today.

Exactly the approach I advocate. I've even been meaning to put my ideas into practice by coding up a direct digital democracy site, but somehow haven't managed to generate enough sustained motivation. The problem of "don't know enough to have an informed opinion" can easily be overcome by the ability to delegate one's vote - either (perhaps by default) to one's nominal "representative" (appointed as in the current system) or to one's partner, or a public voice one trusts. One could even elect to delegate one's vote to different people on different policies/issues/categories.

An existing (last I checked) direct digital democracy solution which first implemented this idea of deferred votes is Liquid Feedback.
 
Back
Top