Bias against Trump
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 cryrst  The garden of England 30 Dec 19 1.32pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Yeah, you see, if you're a British PM you can affect the British economy. But if you're the US President apparently you can't affect the US economy. It's beyond parody. Yup and it's your fault the iron lady got mentioned in a trump thread. Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Dec 2019 11.17am)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 30 Dec 19 5.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
You planned that Of course I didn't plan it! I was concentrating on Trump and only responded to Thatcher being introduced because of the absurdity of thinking that there are direct parallels between the US and UK situations. An absurdity that apparently continues. In case anyone hasn't noticed a PM is always the leader of the government which, except in very exceptional and short lived circumstances, commands a majority in Parliament. They control the legislative agenda over the whole country. As such most of their actions apply nationwide and can be quickly implemented. Whilst international events still dominate the background to economic progress a PM can have a quick and direct impact. A President has to work through Congress, which can be either 100% from the same party as him, 100% from the other or split 50:50, as it is now. Many issues are also delegated to State legislatures. Thus whilst a President being directed elected might give them the mandate to take independent decisions the checks and balances implicit in the need for congressional approval is both limiting in the time needed and the ability to actually implement anything. Just look at the way the budget gets repeatedly delayed, causing government shutdowns. That couldn't happen in the UK.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 30 Dec 19 5.54pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Yeah, you see the President never has the majority in both houses....oh wait, like Trump did in his first two years where he passed his tax reforms....Like Obama did in his first term....passed Obamacare. Oh and apparently there aren't similar checks and balances in the UK system for the Prime Minister....What???? Large majorities are relatively rare.....and PMs frequently have to compromise and balance bills that they want to get passed. That's even when they have reaosnable majorities. This guy....so disingenuous. In the parliament PMs having to compromise to get bills through is common place....like we don't have the HoL to further pass back bills......like we ourselves don't have a judiciary who are also involved in interpreting laws. Hell, the frigging US system was designed by Europeans....it's a republic but a similar system in many ways.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 30 Dec 19 7.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Of course I didn't plan it! I was concentrating on Trump and only responded to Thatcher being introduced because of the absurdity of thinking that there are direct parallels between the US and UK situations. An absurdity that apparently continues. In case anyone hasn't noticed a PM is always the leader of the government which, except in very exceptional and short lived circumstances, commands a majority in Parliament. They control the legislative agenda over the whole country. As such most of their actions apply nationwide and can be quickly implemented. Whilst international events still dominate the background to economic progress a PM can have a quick and direct impact. A President has to work through Congress, which can be either 100% from the same party as him, 100% from the other or split 50:50, as it is now. Many issues are also delegated to State legislatures. Thus whilst a President being directed elected might give them the mandate to take independent decisions the checks and balances implicit in the need for congressional approval is both limiting in the time needed and the ability to actually implement anything. Just look at the way the budget gets repeatedly delayed, causing government shutdowns. That couldn't happen in the UK. So Brexit wasnt delayed by parliament and mixed up numbers then.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Dec 19 7.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
If anyone bothered to read my last comment they will realise that I said there are 3 realistic scenarios for Congress, including control of both the House and Senate by one party as indeed was the case in the first two years of Trump. Whilst obviously easier when such a situation exists it is still far from a "shoe in" for Presidential proposals. Congress is a co-equal branch of government which frequently demands compromise from a President and submits their own counter proposals, whatever it's make up. This all takes time and then there is the inevitable time lag between the action and any real economic impact. In fact the tax cuts in Trump's first 2 years were very much those of the Republican Party as a whole. They had been arguing for them for years and, along with the repeal of "Obamacare" had pretty much made that a condition for Trump to fulfill. This despite the fact that "trickle down" economics has been proven time and again to deliver short term gain and long term pain. That doesn't stop Trump claiming the credit or conveniently forgetting that "Obamacare" hasn't been reformed. It is all very different from our Parliament where the PM's party will normally vote to pass government proposals. There the negotiations all take place behind the scenes, in Cabinet and party HQ. Whilst very large majorities might well be rare the whipping system is usually sufficient to ensure the party line is followed. Our judiciary's job is to apply the law and sometimes that requires them to determine what it means. By the way I don't think the founding fathers regarded themselves as Europeans. I rather think they believed they were Americans.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 30 Dec 19 8.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
If anyone bothered to read my last comment they will realise that I said there are 3 realistic scenarios for Congress, including control of both the House and Senate by one party as indeed was the case in the first two years of Trump. Whilst obviously easier when such a situation exists it is still far from a "shoe in" for Presidential proposals. Congress is a co-equal branch of government which frequently demands compromise from a President and submits their own counter proposals, whatever it's make up. This all takes time and then there is the inevitable time lag between the action and any real economic impact. In fact the tax cuts in Trump's first 2 years were very much those of the Republican Party as a whole. They had been arguing for them for years and, along with the repeal of "Obamacare" had pretty much made that a condition for Trump to fulfill. This despite the fact that "trickle down" economics has been proven time and again to deliver short term gain and long term pain. That doesn't stop Trump claiming the credit or conveniently forgetting that "Obamacare" hasn't been reformed. It is all very different from our Parliament where the PM's party will normally vote to pass government proposals. There the negotiations all take place behind the scenes, in Cabinet and party HQ. Whilst very large majorities might well be rare the whipping system is usually sufficient to ensure the party line is followed. Our judiciary's job is to apply the law and sometimes that requires them to determine what it means. By the way I don't think the founding fathers regarded themselves as Europeans. I rather think they believed they were Americans. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 30 Dec 19 8.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
This guy is just an endless resource of twaddle.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Dec 19 8.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by the silurian
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!! I totally agree. I have got better things to do than try to point out the obvious to a brick wall whose primary arguments are denial and insult. Sleeping beats that every time. If anyone continues to think that Trump's ridiculous claims have any basis in fact then sobeit. There are about 44% of the electorate in the USA who agree with you whilst 56% don't. I know which ones I think are the gullible.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| the silurian The garden of England.(not really) 30 Dec 19 9.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I totally agree. I have got better things to do than try to point out the obvious to a brick wall whose primary arguments are denial and insult. If anyone continues to think that Trump's ridiculous claims have any basis in fact then sobeit. There are about 44% of the electorate in the USA who agree with you whilst 56% don't. I know which ones I think are the gullible. Really? Doesnt look that way! Percentages not your strong point are they?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 30 Dec 19 10.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by the silurian
Really? Doesnt look that way! Percentages not your strong point are they? Not my percentages at all. They come from the best regarded source of accurate information available. I was a little out of date. The current is 43% approve and 53% disapprove. Obviously polls vary and Trump only quotes the ones which flatter him. Those figures are from "538" which is a poll of polls, weighted to reflect past accuracies and methodology. They are updated daily. Read them for yourself here:- [Link]
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  30 Dec 19 10.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Not my percentages at all. They come from the best regarded source of accurate information available. I was a little out of date. The current is 43% approve and 53% disapprove. Obviously polls vary and Trump only quotes the ones which flatter him. Those figures are from "538" which is a poll of polls, weighted to reflect past accuracies and methodology. They are updated daily. Read them for yourself here:- [Link] According to both CBS and NBC Trump’s favourable rating was 33% in 2016. Didn’t make any difference did it?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays Online 30 Dec 19 10.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quoting polls as if they mean anything when pretty much every single sitting president has under fifty percent most of the time. Also this idea that if you don't approve it means you disapprove is pretty dim. In any properly conducted poll there will be a percentage who don't care either way. But when you have zero objectivity..... Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Dec 2019 10.25pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.