ReeferMadness

LMAO. Was that supposed to prove something? Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to describe all the hate crimes you suffered for voting Harper.

If there is to be a revolution in America in the near future, it will almost certainly be guided from the presidency. What type of revolution will it be? Who can know? Since Trump ran a campaign based almost entirely on rhetoric (much of it bigoted) and since he is already distancing himself from the few actual promises he made, he's free to do almost anything. There is a concerted effort in the media to normalize Trump and play down fears of what he might do. A commonly heard theme is that that congress or the courts will keep him in line. Some have claimed that he will be impeached. Given that he's already been counted out by the Republicans and the Democrats (and has outmaneuvered both), I don't put much stock in the ability of American institutions to control him. This is a vindictive, thin-skinned guy who ran a campaign mostly based on blaming other people for America's woes, has praised authoritarian leaders like Putin, whose administration is already reaching out to European fascist movements, and who has promised to walk away from international agreements. if you're not concerned, I don't think you're paying attention.

Link If 200 incidents were documented, it's safe to assume there are a ton more that weren't reported. Maybe you can describe how many hate crimes you suffered as a result of voting for Harper. Do you have a citation? No? Of course not. What most of the MSM is actually doing is normalizing a president who ran the most racist campaign of any leader in my memory. And those voters who voted for Trump in spite of his naked appeals to bigots? The ones who claim they're not really bigots themselves but they voted for him for other reasons? The ones who ignored the fact that the KKK came out in support of Trump? What does that make them exactly?

Your contention is that the US is rejecting money in politics by electing a trust-fund baby - billionaire with highly questionable business ethics? That's absurd. The very idea only shows that people are not paying attention. Trump is a pretend reformer who will use the presidency to enrich himself.

If you think it's OK to mock people who are being harassed and threatened because of their religion or the color of their skin, I think you fit right in with Trump supporters.

Frankly, very little is funny to me at the moment, certainly not your lack of understanding of the English language.

Or they show that he has financial ties to any number of unsavory places/people/organizations around the world. Or they show any number of other things. At any rate, the fact that his supporters have been willing to give him a pass on this just go to show how little they care for truth.

I don't get it. How does a guy sever ties with himself? Or did you literally mean he has severe ties with dishonest people? Cuz I agree with that.

Do Trump supporters need "safe spaces"? Did Clinton spend her campaign targeting racial minorities and other religions? Honestly, if you could manage to read something other than Breitbart and Infowars, you might understand what has been going on.

Any comparisons to Trudeau are fatuous and ridiculous. Trudeau didn't spend his entire campaign spouting one falsehood after another. He didn't spend his campaign spouting outlandish conspiracy theories. He didn't spend his campaign outing himself as a raging hypocrite. And he certainly didn't spend his campaign demonizing racial minorities, Muslims and the media. It's completely bizarre and an American shame that a candidate who ran such a lie-filled, hate-filled low intelligence campaign should be anything other than a fringe candidate. It isn't at all clear to me that Trump himself believed the nonsense he spouted; or that he is a racist or even a misogynist. It's more likely that he is a raging narcissist; and quite possibly a sociopath. I suspect he doesn't hate women, Muslims or people of other races; he just sees everyone only in terms of his own needs and desires. There is no doubting that he is a self-aggrandizing huckster with a talent for manipulating people and promoting his brand. When he ran for the Republican nomination, he would have known that the establishment wasn't going to support him. So, what's a poor billionaire to do? He brands himself as an 'outsider', pushes the conspiracy dial up to 11, clothed himself in religious/social conservative views and, taking a page from the Hitler guide to political success, starts to blame all of America's problems on outsiders - Mexicans, Muslims, China and so on. Most bizarrely is how a serial Clearly, this type of branding isn't going to appeal to (or fool) everyone but luckily for Trump, it didn't have to. He attracted enough of a coalition of racists, evangelicals, and conspiracy wingnuts to form a base. But the common thread in all of this are what are called "low information voters". These people aren't necessarily stupid but they are grossly uninformed and not inclined to research or even think hard about information they are given. So, Trump voters may not be too dumb to know what they've done but as a group, they are not inclined to figure it out.

Self-centred narcissism. Way to play into the worst kind of American stereotype.

Trump supporters are a fascinating study in human psychology. They know what Trump is but they support him anyway. Some rationalize and lie to themselves ("Maybe he is a lying, bigoted, erratic, proto-fascist but Hillary stored emails on her home computer and that's just as bad"). Others blame American history or justify themselves with the constitution ("So what if he is a lying, bigoted, erratic proto-fascist. The constitution says I can vote for whoever I like!") I wonder what the founding fathers would think if they were here today. Of course, some of them were slave owners so maybe they'd be ok with him.

Oh, yeah. The left wing media (owned by all those communist-sympathizing global corporations) is biased in favour of Clinton. :rolleyes: And now Hillary is being protected by that hotbed of leftists the FBI! Hahahaha. Oh, geez. I could never make this stuff up. Where would you be without the comfort of conspiracy theories to protect you from seeing world as it is? Sadly, the world is full of racists and bigots. What we don't need is some reality show wingnut who stands up and says the things they only think. I see. You believe Trump when he says he will get 95% of the black vote?

You're far too modest. No protofascist or wannabe strong man has ever gotten anywhere without millions of adoring fans cheering him on. Of course when things go bad, those same people will look the other way and say "Well I didn't know he would do that". Ah, the great American tradition. All about rights and nothing about responsibilities. Oh, wait. Right wingers are all about responsibilities when it comes to single mothers on welfare. Just not when it's nut job politicians.

Really. Perhaps you could enumerate the list of presidents in modern times that have called residents of another country a bunch of rapists. Or told blatant falsehoods that were likely to inflame hatred against members of a religion (ie. Trump claiming that Muslims celebrated after 9/11). Or placed hands on their daughters in inappropriate ways (ewwwww). Well, lots of people would agree with you that your country's history is rife with racism (some would say it was built on racism); but most people don't embrace bigotry as a constitutionally protected ideal, though. Good for you though. You should own your values. Oh. You think people should vote for Trump on the basis that his hateful and idiotic rhetoric will somehow be toned down when he gets to the white house? That's always a risky strategy. As the people who voted for Hitler might have said

Maybe. But only a few of them have been so belligerent and blatant about their racism. Or so specific about which specific groups of people are to be targeted. Maybe you don't mind when Trump signals it's ok to target some group of people because it's not you?

In a perfect world, I'd fix the electoral quotients. In real life, though, it's not worth it. The provinces squabble like spoiled children fighting over an inheritance. It would hurt unit. In time, maybe.

Why, that's a very astute analysis. Because what kind of president does America need right now? Maybe America needs a mendacious racist. Or perhaps it is the right time in America's history for a flippant misogynist. A bigot and a racist? A bullshit artist? (which is apparently worse than a liar) Perhaps you think it is time that America had a proto-fascist. Nothing wrong with having a racist, sexist demagogue for president, right? I guess it all depends on what kind of president Americans want, right?

Wow. That's what you took away? Read again. Nope. And being as your country (unlike ours) could wipe out civilization, perhaps even annihilate most higher life forms, I would take it as a favour if you would make your politics a little more towards the sanity end of the sanity-whack job spectrum. So, PR won't fix everything. Obviously. But it does provide a government that better reflects the views of the majority of the electorate. And it forces people to cooperate. Neither should be considered a bad thing in a democracy. The sacred link between the MP and the constituent is often touted as the reason that FPTP boosters want to hold on to their systems with a fervor only matched by gun nuts holding onto their guns. However, that link varies between vastly overstated and virtually non-existent. So, if the backbenchers are just as powerless, nothing is lost. However, proportionality is still gained. Good luck with that. Although HRC is only a good choice in relative terms. Almost anyone would be.

3 Warning Points 0 Suspensions That's all?? You're not arguing hard enough. :P

I've never claimed to be an expert. I'm just a guy who can read - and understand the key points. But Mr PoliSci has brought his studies into the discussion as credentials and I'm pointing out that despite is edjumacation, his posts illustrate a lack of understanding of some of the key points of PR.

Oh. You think that violent tendencies, sexism, religious persecution and ethnic bigotry constitute reform? Many people would just call that business as usual. Of course, you could argue that the overt nature in which Trump calls out specific groups is novel, at least in post WWII times. With ordinary dog-whistle politics, all the rednecks (and let's face it, some of them aren't exactly geniuses) are never sure if they are hating the right groups. Trump makes it easy for them.

Because you prefer parties who campaign on one thing and then do something completely different? Hahaha. No wonder you liked Harper so much. Dysfunction indeed.

Hahahahaha. Oh, geez. I should have known you might be a Trump defender. Sure, he says bigoted, hateful things. Sure he's a narcissist. And a liar. And a phony. But he's not a bad guy, is he? Hahahaha. Thanks for the relief humor.

I'm not surprised. If I lived in a country where it was distinctly possible that the most powerful person in government could be a man described in the mainstream media as proto-fascist, a racist sexist demagogue, a mendacious racist, a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully and other choice epithets, I would probably look favorably at other systems too. Now, I'm flattered that someone as learned as you would choose to spend your time on whether a rather insignificant country such as ours chooses PR but... For the love of God, don't you think you should be spending every ounce of your energy ensuring that the world's biggest nuclear arsenal isn't placed in the hands of a reality-show wingnut? And then, if you have any time left over, maybe you could look at fixing your own, deeply dysfunctional system.