JamesHackerMP

Oh....sorry to hear that. We might disagree with each other frequently, but I've never considered you "not worth" a reply, or a "liar and a hypocrite".

Altai, we may not agree with each other on here, but you do actually live next door to Syria so I'm curious: what do you think will happen to Pres. Assad? and why?

Oh right, the chief of staff, sorry. I see he's also a retired USMC general. Good for him, but I imagine with his military caste of mind, he would chafe under the yoke of the likes of Donals Trump. I see exactly why you predict Kelly would go. Perhaps, like Gen. Mattis, he probably believes he is serving his country as long as he does it well, no matter who the idiot is he's working for. I would hope, at least. Or assume...(so I guess that'll be Chief Kelly, with the civil war musket, in the West Wing.)

LOL, s'ok, my sarcasm gets the better of me sometimes. That was just a joke, really...I'm glad you had fun. I certainly am. Getting caught seems to be the ultimate crime in government, not actually doing something wrong; I think your assessment is right. I remember Tillerson having to hold a whole press conference to deny that he and Trump had a rift between each other. As Jim Hacker himself said, "Never believe anything until it's been officially denied!" I don't know if Carson will actually be next, but he is an idiot. He once said that the pyramids were likely built to store grain on the orders of the Biblical figure Joseph, who was (according to the OT) vizier of Egypt. Wow. He was a brilliant surgeon who separated those conjoined twins at Johns Hopkins some years back. He's one of those smart people who, however smart he may be, should stick to his own field. A rock star doesn't write love poetry, etc. He doesn't belong in politics or administration. John Kelly, I forget who/what he is?

A friend of mine posted "Trump Bingo" on Facebook to see who would win for predicting the next resignation from the Trump Administration. I think we can do better than that, and have more fun in the process. Make it in the form of a "Clue" accusation (Person, Weapon, Location in the White House or other US government building.) Optional: mention why you think this person will have to go, or why you like (or more likely, dislike) him or her. I'll go first. I accuse Dr. Carson, with the Bust of Lincoln, in the Situation Room. (HUD Secretary Carson is a dick who's much better at performing surgery than governing Housing and Urban Development).

I changed my major from political science to business technology administration (like an info systems major but it was a BA, and more businessy stuff and less math & science...stuff.) The reason for changing my major from poli sci was, what the hell am I going to do with this? I asked myself.

gender studies? there's a pretty good submission for the "useless major of the century" award.

Altai, your emotional rantings aside, it's probably not a good idea to fire on a NATO ally. Think carefully about that one. As long as there's oil in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, whichever nation is the superpower of Earth--today the USA, tomorrow perhaps China, who can say?--the world's superpower or superpowers will continue to have a presence in the Middle East. We're not involved there because we WANT to. It's a matter of necessity, decided not by the US Government, but by the fact that a bunch of dinosaurs lived there millions of years ago, and turned into oil, and that's what your car uses for food. PS it was the British who dismembered your country (well, the Ottoman Empire, at any rate). The United States did try to stay out of European imperialism for quite some time. It was a nice try, and it was fun while it lasted. By the way, the United States gets 15% of its oil from the entire Middle East, as a whole. Most of what we consume comes from North American sources. But while the price of oil depends on how much the Saudis pump every month, somebody--the United States today, perhaps China tomorrow--will have a military presence in the region. There's no way around it. I must say however, that there is a certain amount of stupidity involved in America's dealings in your part of the world. We might as well leave it up to the people who know more about it, since our government is clueless when it comes to the Mideast. But again, it's not that simple.

You do a full recount if state law requires it. Like, if it's so close, within a few votes. And do you know how the computer systems work?

And ruined/mismanaged 17 of your own states in the last 3,000 years. It took you a helluva long while to get the Byzantines. Sounds like Pres. Erdogan is trying to throw out a "red herring" to make himself look less complicit.

Still no reply? By the way, every country likes to think of itself as a country of peace. But it's bullshit: international relations/diplomacy/war, it's all a survival contest. People get killed.

I don't know what you're talking about. Can you please clarify? You really hate Americans, don't you?

You mean the rebels? The ones rebelling against Pres. Asad? Also, do you really think the Turkish government would be stupid enough to fire on US soldiers?

Germany has a politician--or at least an ex-politician quite often--as its head of state. And the president has the authority to veto a bill IF he can justify it on constitutional grounds (it violates the constitution). It's only been done a handful of times since 1949, but it's been done. A republic cannot really have a totally-neutral head of state. But Canada's not really a republic or a monarchy, it's what you might call a crowned republic. Since the Queen will automatically accept any PM's recommendation for GG, it means that your GG is actually far more political than his German counterpart, the bundespraesident.

Of course there are computer tallies, but there's a paper trail. They're called ballots. I'm sorry Argus, I don't think you're 100% informed on this one.

Not all states have electronic voting. In fact, my state just did away with it, thankfully.

American.

So you're expecting a House majority of Democrats, but the GOP still tenuously holding on to the Senate.

Also, the Senate seats up for grabs are mostly in the blue states as I said. How pissed off are people in those states with Donald Trump or the GOP in general?

Also, 36 governors are up for election. Here are the details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018 A lot of the gubernatorial elections are in red states, but the Senate elections are for seats mostly in blue states.

The "midterm" elections in the United States are on November 6, 2018, for 33 Senate seats and 435 House of Representatives seats. Predictions? Thoughts? Keep in mind, Roy Moore lost in the by-election in Alabama; and the GOP "success" of its Great Tax Reform just passed may both affect it. Moore's defeat by a Democrat in Alabama of all places is an indication that the GOP isn't quite as solid as it wants to be; but when a party gets a bit of legislation passed that it wanted that's always an increase in political capital. But of course anything can happen in 10 months.

The big question is, is there a "good" oligarchy of sorts? If there were a way of truly weeding out those who--by the metric of wisdom or lack thereof--shouldn't be allowed within 200 feet of a polling booth in the first place; would it be worth doing so? I'm just asking for the sake of asking (for shits and giggles truly) not because I think that it ought to be done. After all, there are civil service exams...I think one of you alluded to something like that above.

I'm sure that would present its own problems. "all parties" I assume would mean "all political parties"? Same problem, then.

The problem with democracy is that it entitles all qualified citizens to vote--and qualified in a democracy means that you're not in jail or so mentally handicapped that you're a ward of the State, as long as you are 18 years of age it's a green light for you to go vote. It doesn't take into account your intelligence, or even better, whether or not you will be CAREFUL in your decision (like actually pick up a frikkin newspaper once in a while, do a little research before you mark your ballot). But no one has yet invented a form of government that would actually force or even encourage people to be a little more careful in their choices. If people were more careful when they voted, if everyone turned out armed with extensive knowledge of the issues and the candidates, would that change things? Perhaps; it might put a stop to some of the feel-good "silliness" of democracy. But currently there's no way to ensure that.

hot enough, did you know that, according to the Hague Convention, it's illegal to bomb from aircraft? What does that say about the world's willingness to follow a standard of "legal" and "illegal" invasions? Hot Enough: Was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor legal or illegal? Was the US's action against the Barbary Pirates under Pres. Jefferson legal or illegal? There was no declaration of war in the latter. Technically it is illegal for the US to have a permanent standing army if you read our constitution. Was the 1991 Gulf War legal or illegal? And weren't we discussing Democracy?