Looks like Americans fight most here?

[TedG]

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Can you read? My post said I was in a car near Chicago.

 

I have been to the USA more times than I can count. Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Atlantic City, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Connecticut, Denver, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles. Nearly forgot San Antonio.

 

I might have been more places in America than you have.

Do my travels to the EU make me an expert on the EU? 

 

There is no way you have been to more places in the US than I have. 

[Evil Penevil]

23 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Who the hell designed such a cockeyed system?

5

The Electoral College was the result of a compromise during the framing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787.  It's complicated, but the Founding Fathers had to devise a system that would increase the representation of small states and slave-owning states beyond "one man, one vote" direct democracy.  At that time,  only white,  male property owners were allowed to vote and almost all delegates  to the Constitutional Convention believed the populous states of the Northeast would be able to out-vote the rest of the country.  The Founding Fathers needed to find a system that balanced the advantage the Northeast had in terms of population.

 

Many delegates were convinced the presidential electors would be guided by the popular vote, but could make a better choice if a devious candidate managed to fool the voters.   They envisioned the voters choosing electors from the wisest and most morally upstanding men in the  various states.   They didn't forsee the rise of party politics in the U.S., which meant electors, like other candidates, were  selected along party lines.  

 

All these deliberations  took place against the overriding background of checks and balances in the U.S. system.  The Founding Fathers were determined not to let any branch of the government nor any regional group of voters have too much power.  The Electoral College made perfect sense in the late 1700s, not so much today.

 

[Lacessit]

23 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

5

The Electoral College was the result of a compromise during the framing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787.  It's complicated, but the Founding Fathers had to devise a system that would increase the representation of small states and slave-owning states beyond "one man, one vote" direct democracy.  At that time,  only white,  male property owners were allowed to vote and almost all delegates  to the Constitutional Convention believed the populous states of the Northeast would be able to out-vote the rest of the country.  The Founding Fathers needed to find a system that balanced the advantage the Northeast had in terms of population.

 

Many delegates were convinced the presidential electors would be guided by the popular vote, but could make a better choice if a devious candidate managed to fool the voters.   They envisioned the voters choosing electors from the wisest and most morally upstanding men in the  various states.   They didn't forsee the rise of party politics in the U.S., which meant electors, like other candidates, were  selected along party lines.  

 

All these deliberations  took place against the overriding background of checks and balances in the U.S. system.  The Founding Fathers were determined not to let any branch of the government nor any regional group of voters have too much power.  The Electoral College made perfect sense in the late 1700s, not so much today.

 

Just as the Second Amendment made sense then with muskets, less so with Glocks.

 

Thank you for an explanation which is not defensive.

[maesariang]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Just as the Second Amendment made sense then with muskets, less so with Glocks.

When Trump wins you can have a beer to celebrate.

[bunnydrops]

1 hour ago, Evil Penevil said:

5

The Electoral College was the result of a compromise during the framing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787.  It's complicated, but the Founding Fathers had to devise a system that would increase the representation of small states and slave-owning states beyond "one man, one vote" direct democracy.  At that time,  only white,  male property owners were allowed to vote and almost all delegates  to the Constitutional Convention believed the populous states of the Northeast would be able to out-vote the rest of the country.  The Founding Fathers needed to find a system that balanced the advantage the Northeast had in terms of population.

 

Many delegates were convinced the presidential electors would be guided by the popular vote, but could make a better choice if a devious candidate managed to fool the voters.   They envisioned the voters choosing electors from the wisest and most morally upstanding men in the  various states.   They didn't forsee the rise of party politics in the U.S., which meant electors, like other candidates, were  selected along party lines.  

 

All these deliberations  took place against the overriding background of checks and balances in the U.S. system.  The Founding Fathers were determined not to let any branch of the government nor any regional group of voters have too much power.  The Electoral College made perfect sense in the late 1700s, not so much today.

 

And the flaw that lead to the appointment of fake electors

 

Variations are allowable under the constitutional design. As the Supreme Court wrote in McPherson v. Blacker (1892), which rejected a constitutional challenge to a Michigan law providing for the selection of Electors by a district system, "the appointment and mode of appointment of Electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States." We have no uniform national system for appointing Electors, which means the legislatures do not have to consult the public at all. When members of the Florida legislature in 2000 threatened to abandon the results of the statewide popular contest and appoint Electors for a particular candidate, the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000) appeared to endorse their power to do so by denying that citizens have a constitutional right to vote in presidential elections. As the majority put it, “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for Electors for the President of the United States..." When it comes to presidential elections, the voters are at the mercy of the state legislatures.

 

[oslooskar]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

We have had socialism on and off in Australia since Federation. Thanks to it, we have a medical system that doesn't bankrupt its citizens with health insurance or the cost of medicines.

Australia has never been a fully socialist country, but it has implemented various policies and systems that are associated with socialism. However, even during those times, the country maintained a capitalist economy with private property and market-driven principles. So, while Australia has adopted some socialist policies, it has remained a fundamentally capitalist country.

[oslooskar]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Just as the Second Amendment made sense then with muskets, less so with Glocks.

The Second Amendment makes perfect sense. It keeps Uncle Sam from becoming BIG BROTHER.

[Bohemianfish]

As an American, yes, we are combative. It took me years living with Thai people (in the States) to chill out. 

[Luuk Chaai]

On 8/23/2024 at 2:48 PM, Jingthing said:

I think you're wrong UNLESS there is a massive blue landslide.

The maga fascist movement is now unfortunately much bigger than just Trump. 

They won't quit the maga stuff quickly or easily unless they're forced to humiliating large losses.

The left woke broke gaslighting socialist marxist anti American (dems) are so bad even RFK Jr flipped them off. ..go look in the mirror and start singing I'm PROUD To Be an American until you get it Right

[Jingthing]

25 minutes ago, Luuk Chaai said:

The left woke broke gaslighting socialist marxist anti American (dems) are so bad even RFK Jr flipped them off. ..go look in the mirror and start singing I'm PROUD To Be an American until you get it Right

Insane post.

Speaking of insane.

RFK Jr.

[stoner]

58 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

1 hour ago, Luuk Chaai said:

The left woke broke gaslighting socialist marxist anti American (dems) are so bad even RFK Jr flipped them off. ..go look in the mirror and start singing I'm PROUD To Be an American until you get it Right

Insane post.

Speaking of insane.

RFK Jr.

 

is it any more insane than the 486 000 times you have said maga fascist on here. 

[Luuk Chaai]

16 hours ago, Lacessit said:

While Americans on this thread are belting each other around the head with their beliefs on who is better at running the USA, they might want to consider this:

 

You are expats. Your vote in America is insignificant. Your power as a lobby group is not on the radar of either party.

 

Who do you think is more likely to start messing with your Social Security and Medicare? Who is most likely to improve it, and who is more likely to degrade it?

You are expats. Your vote in America is insignificant.      sez who ???

I live in Thailand and my vote goes to my registered state...    and it counts !

 .. and my SS payments are not limited because of where I live...

 ... and my bank accounts don't get closed because of where I live...

 

[Jingthing]

16 hours ago, Lacessit said:

While Americans on this thread are belting each other around the head with their beliefs on who is better at running the USA, they might want to consider this:

 

You are expats. Your vote in America is insignificant. Your power as a lobby group is not on the radar of either party.

 

Who do you think is more likely to start messing with your Social Security and Medicare? Who is most likely to improve it, and who is more likely to degrade it?

Votes are votes.

Expats voting in Pennsylvania have more power than residents voting in Alabama.

As far as SS and Medicare are concerned, there is zero doubt that democrats are much  better.

As far as expat lobbying groups, that exists but yes very weak. 

Most Americans consider expats as unpatriotic.

As far as annoying banking regulations that impact expats, I may be wrong, but I think the democrats are probably worse on that.

Also don't assume expats are voting only on narrow expat specific issues.

In my case, support for Ukraine over Russia, democracy over autocracy, voting rights, LGBTQ civil rights, reproductive rights, protecting the independence of the DOJ, common sense gun restrictions, affordable housing, keeping most federal workers based on competence and experience rather than loyalty to a president and others are all important concerns. 

[Yagoda]

22 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

As I've said many times in the past I have major issues with Trump and Vance. I do not have issues with his supporters, I do not have issues with conservatives, I understand why they want to vote for him, I understand that many of the issues they have are different than mine. And that is totally valid. Some of my best friends and some very close family members are conservatives, we have dialogues, and when we discuss politics it is done with mutual affection and respect. 

 

When we start degenerating into a hateful mob, reduced to insults and memes, that's when we really have a problem. Insult the candidates, they deserve it, but not their supporters. 

 

How did you find those numbers? 30,000 Americans living here? 

 

 

You are a blatant liar, you have over and over expressed your contempt for Trump supporters.

[Yagoda]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Votes are votes.

Expats voting in Pennsylvania have more power than residents voting in Alabama.

As far as SS and Medicare are concerned, there is zero doubt that democrats are much  better.

As far as expat lobbying groups, that exists but yes very weak. 

Most Americans consider expats as unpatriotic.

As far as annoying banking regulations that impact expats, I may be wrong, but I think the democrats are probably worse on that.

Also don't assume expats are voting only on narrow expat specific issues.

In my case, support for Ukraine over Russia, democracy over autocracy, voting rights, LGBTQ civil rights, reproductive rights, protecting the independence of the DOJ, common sense gun restrictions, affordable housing, keeping most federal workers based on competence and experience rather than loyalty to a president and others are all important concerns. 

You are a one issue voter and everyone here knows it.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, Luuk Chaai said:

You are expats. Your vote in America is insignificant.      sez who ???

I live in Thailand and my vote goes to my registered state...    and it counts !

 .. and my SS payments are not limited because of where I live...

 ... and my bank accounts don't get closed because of where I live...

 

You are confusing me for British, I'm Australian.

[Lacessit]

8 hours ago, oslooskar said:

The Second Amendment makes perfect sense. It keeps Uncle Sam from becoming BIG BROTHER.

It also means you have to train your schoolchildren how to avoid getting shot at school. Not something my country has to worry about.

 

What's next, giving your kids flak jackets and helmets?

[Lacessit]

8 hours ago, oslooskar said:

Australia has never been a fully socialist country, but it has implemented various policies and systems that are associated with socialism. However, even during those times, the country maintained a capitalist economy with private property and market-driven principles. So, while Australia has adopted some socialist policies, it has remained a fundamentally capitalist country.

Correct. IMO we got the recipe right. Why can't America do the same?

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

All these deliberations  took place against the overriding background of checks and balances in the U.S. system.  The Founding Fathers were determined not to let any branch of the government nor any regional group of voters have too much power.  The Electoral College made perfect sense in the late 1700s, not so much today.

It's even more valid today. If it were replaced by a popular vote the liberal coasts would win every time, simply by population. The US is not exclusively made up of liberals, and everyone deserves a shot.

[In Full Agreement]

3 hours ago, Luuk Chaai said:

 ... and my bank accounts don't get closed because of where I live...

 

 

You mean not yet they haven't.,

 

 

[oslooskar]

58 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Correct. IMO we got the recipe right. Why can't America do the same?

Because the United States, unlike Australia, was founded on a deep skepticism of centralized power, stemming from colonial experiences with British rule. The Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, and the Bill of Rights all reflect a wariness of governmental overreach. This distrust is deeply ingrained in American political culture and has shaped the development of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power. Hence, emulating Australian trust in government could risk undermining these foundational principles that guard against potential tyranny. In fact, one need only look at the crackdown on free speech in the United Kingdom that is presently taking place to know your recipe is wrong for Americans.

[Lacessit]

59 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's even more valid today. If it were replaced by a popular vote the liberal coasts would win every time, simply by population. The US is not exclusively made up of liberals, and everyone deserves a shot.

If everyone deserves a shot, how can a candidate win the popular vote, and still lose?

 

IMO the Electoral College is no longer fit for purpose. Neither is the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court, and Judge Aileen Cannon.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, oslooskar said:

Because the United States, unlike Australia, was founded on a deep skepticism of centralized power, stemming from colonial experiences with British rule. The Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, and the Bill of Rights all reflect a wariness of governmental overreach. This distrust is deeply ingrained in American political culture and has shaped the development of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power. Hence, emulating Australian trust in government could risk undermining these foundational principles that guard against potential tyranny. In fact, one need only look at the crackdown on free speech in the United Kingdom that is presently taking place to know your recipe is wrong for Americans.

In other words, as I posted previously, you guys are paranoid.

 

Let me suggest if Trump wins in November, you are well on the path to tyranny.

 

What happened to give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses? Is it <deleted> off, we're full now?

[oslooskar]

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Neither is the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment is deeply rooted in American history and culture, it served and continues to serve as a safeguard for individual liberty and a check against potential governmental overreach, like we see in Britain today. That means its core purpose is to protect the citizens' right to self-defense and to maintain a balance of power between the government and the people.

[Lacessit]

Just now, oslooskar said:

The Second Amendment is deeply rooted in American history and culture, it served and continues to serve as a safeguard for individual liberty and a check against potential governmental overreach, like we see in Britain today. That means its core purpose is to protect the citizens' right to self-defense and to maintain a balance of power between the government and the people.

Australia saw the light in 1996. There are still plenty of guns in our country, just not ones designed for mass slaughter.

 

Meantime, your children will continue to die in school, and innocent civilians die with every nutcase that has free access to firearms.

 

It's a sickness for which you have no cure.

 

 

[MalcolmB]

On 8/23/2024 at 4:23 PM, BangkokReady said:

 

Here's the problem.  The left want to paint anyone who supports Trump as being a fascist, even while they're the ones who are really trying to oppress people.

 

The loony left literally don't want people to be able to vote for whomever they want, they want to have complete control.

 

Ironic that someone would call the conservative fascist, given how the left acts.

Millions of uneducated inbreds.

I have never liked Americans, it doesn’t surprise me that Americans don’t like Americans either. There is an angry hatred of each other there.

 

The world has to find a way to disarm them. They are dangerous. Killed millions of innocent people in Iraq who had no weapons of mass destruction, in Afghanistan hunting a Saudi that was hiding in Pakistan, flattened thousands of villages in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Tough guys when they have the biggest weapons.

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

Millions of uneducated inbreds.

I have never liked Americans, it doesn’t surprise me that Americans don’t like Americans either. There is an angry hatred of each other there.

 

The world has to find a way to disarm them. They are dangerous. Killed millions of innocent people in Iraq who had no weapons of mass destruction, in Afghanistan hunting a Saudi that was hiding in Pakistan, flattened thousands of villages in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Tough guys when they have the biggest weapons.

Whether you like them or not, world trade would collapse if America was to withdraw all its warships from the high seas. Piracy would become rampant.

 

Over 80% of trade takes place by sea. Be careful what you wish for.

[oslooskar]

20 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

In other words, as I posted previously, you guys are paranoid. Let me suggest if Trump wins in November, you are well on the path to tyranny.

Do you see the contradiction in your comment? It lies in the fact that you are simultaneously dismissing the fears of others as irrational while expressing your own fear of a potential future tyranny. You're calling others paranoid and then making a dire prediction and thus engaging in the same behavior you criticize. This undermines your credibility because you're guilty of the same kind of fearful thinking you are accusing others of having.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, oslooskar said:

Do you see the contradiction in your comment? It lies in the fact that you are simultaneously dismissing the fears of others as irrational while expressing your own fear of a potential future tyranny. You're calling others paranoid and then making a dire prediction and thus engaging in the same behavior you criticize. This undermines your credibility because you're guilty of the same kind of fearful thinking you are accusing others of having.

I fear for America, not for myself. There's nothing Trump can do which will affect me or my way of life. If there's a contradiction in that, I can't see it.

 

I am always amused by Americans puffing out their chests, saying they are the greatest. They are not, they just don't realize it.

[Lacessit]

Here's an example of American paranoia........